While I was reading the first chapter, I was thinking about
different arguments I heard that used different persuasive techniques.
Politicians were floating through my brain, and the appeals they made to our
emotions in order to manipulate our judgment. I remember hearing “scientists”
committing logical fallacies on live T.V. in response to climate change. Memories of arguments with my dad came back when he would explain why things
were the way they were by saying ‘that’s just the way it is’.
‘But why?’, I would ask.
An argument that includes the assumed premise being argued was being used to
hide something from me.
I was also thinking about all the writers that I look up to of all different disciplines. Snapshots of headlines were running through my brain, some filled with facts, others inflammatory opinion, all designed to pull us in and make us believe. Certain jokes came to mind that I have heard that pointed out the absurdities of culture and politics, crafted in a way to point out the most surreal of human acts in brief highlights to get to the all-encompassing punchline. Then there were the public speakers who I dread having to listen to; those that simply speak elegantly with no content. What are they trying to hide?
It might be apparent that I don’t remember everything that was in the reading. What I do remember is the idea that creating a compelling argument against an established institution is the responsibility of the rhetorician, while those defending the established institution just get to “sit there looking smug”. The multiple times I’ve seen Bill Nye debating climate change on Fox News came to mind, as well as many brave women fighting for insurance to cover birth control.
The final thoughts I remember having on the first chapter were regarding the generic crimes of the times that Socrates was charged with and ultimately executed for. What were the generic crimes of some modern dictatorial states, or even democratic states? Corruption of youth sounded familiar, and if you change failure to worship the state gods with treason than the same ideas could be censored in a similar fashion today.
I was also thinking about all the writers that I look up to of all different disciplines. Snapshots of headlines were running through my brain, some filled with facts, others inflammatory opinion, all designed to pull us in and make us believe. Certain jokes came to mind that I have heard that pointed out the absurdities of culture and politics, crafted in a way to point out the most surreal of human acts in brief highlights to get to the all-encompassing punchline. Then there were the public speakers who I dread having to listen to; those that simply speak elegantly with no content. What are they trying to hide?
It might be apparent that I don’t remember everything that was in the reading. What I do remember is the idea that creating a compelling argument against an established institution is the responsibility of the rhetorician, while those defending the established institution just get to “sit there looking smug”. The multiple times I’ve seen Bill Nye debating climate change on Fox News came to mind, as well as many brave women fighting for insurance to cover birth control.
The final thoughts I remember having on the first chapter were regarding the generic crimes of the times that Socrates was charged with and ultimately executed for. What were the generic crimes of some modern dictatorial states, or even democratic states? Corruption of youth sounded familiar, and if you change failure to worship the state gods with treason than the same ideas could be censored in a similar fashion today.
Seems like nothing changes. The only good thing is that we maintain the teachings of the great thinkers, but no one remembers a single one of their persecutors.
ReplyDelete