In class we said that experience shapes values,
while this book discussed that you can’t run from your identities/values and be
truly happy in your choice to do so. I think that coming into contact with
other narratives (which includes identities and values) shapes how you perceive
the world and what you choose to believe in as a truth.
In reference to Ashton’s second paragraph where she discussed the quotes briefly, my take on those quotes is that Dorothy had to tell herself the stories in dark situations in order to make herself believe them because those stories were also constructed based on her values to find happiness. By believing in those fictitious stories, she was able to take a lens that contradicted her situation with her father. She was able to believe in the truth that everything in her situation would be okay. And by believing in the truth she constructed, she was able to not crumble, but to find hope and a reason to move forward with her life. In essence, I believe that values that are shaped by our experiences can help to construct our narratives/stories regarding what we see and experience within our lives.
Because the “truth” is constructed based on our values, narratives and experiences, I believe that it along with “objectivity" are both subjective and it makes me think of a quote my high school teacher told my class many years ago “if something is true to you, then it’s true and that’s all that matters.” This is where I wish to rant about Socrates. Even though he thought he was being logical/rational, he was still very much driven by pathos because he believed so strongly in his point of view. He failed to recognize that the “truth” he held on to so much was constructed based on his narrative’s interaction with other narratives. He failed to understand that his view was subjective because he held so strongly to his values and because he followed those lines of rhetoric like everyone else, he was still doing rhetoric, whether he cared to admit it or not.
And I think I touched on this in my blog post in Digital Rhetorics with regards to Gorgias, but I did not like how closed-minded and arrogant Socrates came off to me. I disliked that he tried to “prove” he was right without listening/understanding the other side. I felt in that if he tried to understand the rhetorical point of view, he might have been able to bridge the gap a little bit more between him and the non-philosophical people.
Ramage made me see that in order to persuade the audience, you must be willing to befriend the audience and thus earn their trust. I feel like if Socrates or the other group wanted to get their argument across in a moment of persuasion, they needed to try to be open-minded to the other group’s ways of thinking and ways of communicating. If he was able to do that, then maybe he could try to lead them subtly into his way of thinking.
And something else that I also thought about after reading Dorothy’s text is that in order to persuade someone else, you must persuade yourself of the same thing. If you are not passionate or have faith in what you are saying or doing, then how can anyone else feel the same way? Perhaps believing in your own words and actions can give credibility to the audience as well.
I’m too tired in this instance to look for the specific page in Ramage that goes with the motorcycle example you posed, but Jared, I wonder if you felt like Ramage was being too stereotypical. If that’s the case, I respectfully disagree. I feel like he was describing situations in terms of how people see and experience their situations in which end up being dictated by their own values and the values of the people they come in contact with. That contact creates a structurally built in relationship with one another. In other words, the parties in a given situation know what happens and understand the language in those relationships/situations because they personally experience those relationships.
To elaborate further, the given identity that Ramage posed can be where when you’re in a friendship with a friend, you take up roles/actions/beliefs/interpretations that are characteristics of a friendship such as spending time together and doing things that you both enjoy. For the ready-made identity environment, you behave/interpret/think a certain way because of the rules/roles of the environment that you’re in such as a classroom setting because you end up taking up the roles of a student and teacher.
Stereotypes, however, are expectations/judgments people place on the situations that they themselves are not a part of. For example, some people may think that adolescents rebel against their parents at any given instant. However, this is a stereotype because what the outside parties believe do not necessarily align with the values within the parent & adolescent narrative/perspective.
Lastly, I’d like to say that I think it’s interesting how the identities that Ramage poses and the concepts of narratives remind me of values and the characteristics within a given Discourse. I suppose I should try to clear my understanding of how I know it thus far. I believe a Discourse revolves around the interactions & understandings between people in a given situation, identities are who we are in a given situation (and/or Discourse) in which allows us to understand how things are interpreted relative to our situation and lastly, a narrative is the lens we have that is comprised of both identities and Discourses.
... At least that's my interpretation of everything. I do not mean to convey a tone of authority (or a tone that suggests that I know everything). I just wanted to make that clear :).
In reference to Ashton’s second paragraph where she discussed the quotes briefly, my take on those quotes is that Dorothy had to tell herself the stories in dark situations in order to make herself believe them because those stories were also constructed based on her values to find happiness. By believing in those fictitious stories, she was able to take a lens that contradicted her situation with her father. She was able to believe in the truth that everything in her situation would be okay. And by believing in the truth she constructed, she was able to not crumble, but to find hope and a reason to move forward with her life. In essence, I believe that values that are shaped by our experiences can help to construct our narratives/stories regarding what we see and experience within our lives.
Because the “truth” is constructed based on our values, narratives and experiences, I believe that it along with “objectivity" are both subjective and it makes me think of a quote my high school teacher told my class many years ago “if something is true to you, then it’s true and that’s all that matters.” This is where I wish to rant about Socrates. Even though he thought he was being logical/rational, he was still very much driven by pathos because he believed so strongly in his point of view. He failed to recognize that the “truth” he held on to so much was constructed based on his narrative’s interaction with other narratives. He failed to understand that his view was subjective because he held so strongly to his values and because he followed those lines of rhetoric like everyone else, he was still doing rhetoric, whether he cared to admit it or not.
And I think I touched on this in my blog post in Digital Rhetorics with regards to Gorgias, but I did not like how closed-minded and arrogant Socrates came off to me. I disliked that he tried to “prove” he was right without listening/understanding the other side. I felt in that if he tried to understand the rhetorical point of view, he might have been able to bridge the gap a little bit more between him and the non-philosophical people.
Ramage made me see that in order to persuade the audience, you must be willing to befriend the audience and thus earn their trust. I feel like if Socrates or the other group wanted to get their argument across in a moment of persuasion, they needed to try to be open-minded to the other group’s ways of thinking and ways of communicating. If he was able to do that, then maybe he could try to lead them subtly into his way of thinking.
And something else that I also thought about after reading Dorothy’s text is that in order to persuade someone else, you must persuade yourself of the same thing. If you are not passionate or have faith in what you are saying or doing, then how can anyone else feel the same way? Perhaps believing in your own words and actions can give credibility to the audience as well.
I’m too tired in this instance to look for the specific page in Ramage that goes with the motorcycle example you posed, but Jared, I wonder if you felt like Ramage was being too stereotypical. If that’s the case, I respectfully disagree. I feel like he was describing situations in terms of how people see and experience their situations in which end up being dictated by their own values and the values of the people they come in contact with. That contact creates a structurally built in relationship with one another. In other words, the parties in a given situation know what happens and understand the language in those relationships/situations because they personally experience those relationships.
To elaborate further, the given identity that Ramage posed can be where when you’re in a friendship with a friend, you take up roles/actions/beliefs/interpretations that are characteristics of a friendship such as spending time together and doing things that you both enjoy. For the ready-made identity environment, you behave/interpret/think a certain way because of the rules/roles of the environment that you’re in such as a classroom setting because you end up taking up the roles of a student and teacher.
Stereotypes, however, are expectations/judgments people place on the situations that they themselves are not a part of. For example, some people may think that adolescents rebel against their parents at any given instant. However, this is a stereotype because what the outside parties believe do not necessarily align with the values within the parent & adolescent narrative/perspective.
Lastly, I’d like to say that I think it’s interesting how the identities that Ramage poses and the concepts of narratives remind me of values and the characteristics within a given Discourse. I suppose I should try to clear my understanding of how I know it thus far. I believe a Discourse revolves around the interactions & understandings between people in a given situation, identities are who we are in a given situation (and/or Discourse) in which allows us to understand how things are interpreted relative to our situation and lastly, a narrative is the lens we have that is comprised of both identities and Discourses.
... At least that's my interpretation of everything. I do not mean to convey a tone of authority (or a tone that suggests that I know everything). I just wanted to make that clear :).
No comments:
Post a Comment