Hi Ashton,
“Perelman proves how interconnected rhetoric is with philosophy.”
I disagree. He doesn’t prove anything :). I think he’s just stating his narrative, which is different than our own narratives. And when you said that rhetoric that rhetoric isn’t simple, I agree to a point. I believe that how we define something depends on our lens and the values we harbor within that frame of mind. So even when your friend said that rhetoric is “how you argue,” I don’t think she’s wrong. I think she’s right in her way of thinking. Similar with Perelman, I don’t think he’s wrong either – He’s just stating his point of view.
Before reading the Perelman article I hated Socrates because he was anti-rhetoric, but when I read this I realized that the reason why I didn’t like Socrates was because he was acting out his values and his beliefs. He was stating his argument based on his values, and even when I felt he acted closed minded, he was just clashing against my personal views. The more I thought/realized that everyone’s point of view is fair/legit/correct, the easier it was for me to read and take in what the philosophical people had to say throughout the article.
I definitely thought it was interesting in class today when Kim talked about relating/connecting with other people. I think she said that if people don’t believe in what other people believe, then what would be the point of believing in it. However, I wonder though, do we have a choice in what we believe? Can we really just throw away our values if they don’t relate with anyone else? And now I have another thought: If experience shapes our values and is influenced by who we interact with, can we really not have people in our lives (or the world even) who does not share our values and beliefs? I suppose we could if we were raised by gorillas on a deserted island, but somewhere there must have been someone who shared the same experience as us or at least a similar value, yes?
Another thing that caught my eye in this reading was how philosophy seemed to base their criteria for truth and how they persuade their audience with the concepts of ethos and logos. I wonder if according to them opinion is driven by pathos. I wonder if they think that rhetoric is driven by pathos and that is why they think it’s biased. I also wondered another thing: How can we pinpoint an ultimate Truth if everyone has different definitions in different situations for what counts as logical and credible in Truth? How can we pinpoint an ultimate Truth if people ultimately have different experiences which shape their values in-which pre-determines what they may be persuaded to believe in as true?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was prepared to list me as next week's blog poster, but.... I guess this is our last required blog post round of the whole semester. I was kind of looking forward to posting to be honest, but oh well :) -- Let's finish strong guys! :)
“Perelman proves how interconnected rhetoric is with philosophy.”
I disagree. He doesn’t prove anything :). I think he’s just stating his narrative, which is different than our own narratives. And when you said that rhetoric that rhetoric isn’t simple, I agree to a point. I believe that how we define something depends on our lens and the values we harbor within that frame of mind. So even when your friend said that rhetoric is “how you argue,” I don’t think she’s wrong. I think she’s right in her way of thinking. Similar with Perelman, I don’t think he’s wrong either – He’s just stating his point of view.
Before reading the Perelman article I hated Socrates because he was anti-rhetoric, but when I read this I realized that the reason why I didn’t like Socrates was because he was acting out his values and his beliefs. He was stating his argument based on his values, and even when I felt he acted closed minded, he was just clashing against my personal views. The more I thought/realized that everyone’s point of view is fair/legit/correct, the easier it was for me to read and take in what the philosophical people had to say throughout the article.
I definitely thought it was interesting in class today when Kim talked about relating/connecting with other people. I think she said that if people don’t believe in what other people believe, then what would be the point of believing in it. However, I wonder though, do we have a choice in what we believe? Can we really just throw away our values if they don’t relate with anyone else? And now I have another thought: If experience shapes our values and is influenced by who we interact with, can we really not have people in our lives (or the world even) who does not share our values and beliefs? I suppose we could if we were raised by gorillas on a deserted island, but somewhere there must have been someone who shared the same experience as us or at least a similar value, yes?
Another thing that caught my eye in this reading was how philosophy seemed to base their criteria for truth and how they persuade their audience with the concepts of ethos and logos. I wonder if according to them opinion is driven by pathos. I wonder if they think that rhetoric is driven by pathos and that is why they think it’s biased. I also wondered another thing: How can we pinpoint an ultimate Truth if everyone has different definitions in different situations for what counts as logical and credible in Truth? How can we pinpoint an ultimate Truth if people ultimately have different experiences which shape their values in-which pre-determines what they may be persuaded to believe in as true?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was prepared to list me as next week's blog poster, but.... I guess this is our last required blog post round of the whole semester. I was kind of looking forward to posting to be honest, but oh well :) -- Let's finish strong guys! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment