It’s Enlightenment, Baby

How does one reach enlightenment? Immanual Kant would say that one could only reach enlightenment when they are no longer immature; when they have learned the difference between their public and private uses of reason. According to Kant, one reaches enlightenment when they realize that thought they must obey the laws and regulations of society, it is their duty to speak out about the unfairness of said rules in a public forum.

I was surprised to find that for once, I actually agreed with one of the philosophers that we have been reading. I think in this instance, Kant is perfectly right. Take, for example, the current financial situation here at CSUN. I don’t feel that when our state’s budget is in crisis, the result is that I have to pay more money to receive an education; an education that means less and less. Right now having a Bachelor’s Degree is almost the same as having a high school diploma was when my mother was young, but tuition is so expensive that to get a Masters I would be in debt for years. I find this situation ridiculous, and I don’t feel as though I should be the one who pays for the mistakes of others. I will shout how I feel from the rooftops; goodness knows that  my family and most of my friends have had to hear me rant about it. Yet every semester will find me applying for loans and falling more into debt, because even though I don’t agree with it, and even though I will proclaim loudly that I am being short changed to anyone who will listen, it is still my responsibility as a student to pay the tuition required of me. Kant would say that this shows maturity, and that makes me closer to enlightenment, but that part I have to admit I am less in agreement with. I doubt anyone could believe such a thing if they saw me stomping my way down the hall at work when I am having a bad day.

Razzle Dazzle 'Em (Analysis #1)

                While reading about Gorgias of Leontini for class, I was struck by something mentioned in his introduction; something I found to be at the heart of his Encomium of Helen. It was simply this: that while “…Plato is didactic, Gorgias aims to persuade through performance” (37).  That one line helped me to understand the work I was reading. It was quite easy for me to imagine one on a stage, passionately reciting Gorgias’ argument for Helen, defending her in the face of her naysayers and possibly convincing them that in the end it was Helen who was to be pitied; Helen who had no control over her destiny. Yet all the argument really happens to be is a smokescreen; a clever use of words and logic to cover the fact that Helen did in fact commit adultery when she left her husband to go with Paris. Whatever influenced her to do so does not change that simple fact, and yet Gorgias’ clever use of language does a very good job of masking it. After all, who could dispute that fate, birth, and simple love are forces too strong to be denied? It would take someone fairly cynical indeed to want to blame Helen for leaving when Gorgias paints her as a victim of circumstance, rather than choice.

                Which is why, when we were given the assignment to find a clip that showed one of four classical theories, I immediately thought of “Razzle Dazzle” sequence from the movie Chicago as the perfect choice. For what is Billy Flynn doing for one Miss Roxie Hart during her trial but a trumped up version of what Gorgias did for Helen? He is throwing up a layer of words and showy distractions so that everyone around him forgets that she has committed a murder. As he tells her himself, “How can they hear the truth above the roar?”  People don’t care about the truth when they can have a bit of a show, and if you can give them that you can get away with murder. Literally, as it happens. The trick to keep in mind is not to falter; to not give the audience enough time to think about what is being said; else they might realize that the story that’s being woven about them has as many holes as a slice of Swiss cheese.

In the end, even though Roxie is guilty of murder, Billy manages to hide that behind a mixture of a falsified tragic past and an unfortunate twist of fate, painting Roxie as a victim of circumstances and therefore unable to foresee or change the path her life would take…much as Gorgias would claim of Helen. Yet we know, because Billy has already told us, that it doesn’t particularly matter if one is innocent or guilty. What truly matters is how well one can talk themselves out of a hairy situation once they find themselves in it…how well they manage to “razzle dazzle” the crowd so that they forget that the three-ring circus they have found themselves participating in hasn’t been there all along.

Works Cited

“ Razzle Dazzle Chicago Movie”. YouTube. 14 Feb 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5-VN3SH1o&feature=fvsr>.

Gorgias. "Encomium of Helen". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Reflections on the Power of Rhetoric

This week we went to a lecture about Aristotle from Kevin O’Neill. Aristotle was a student of Plato, but branched away from him when it came to the power of rhetoric. Where Plato believed that rhetoric should not be involved in discourse, that fact and truth only should be used, Aristotle believed in it and its power to persuade. O’Neill mentioned that this might have been because to be someone of importance in Greece at the time, one had to be a skilled speaker, as that was a good piece of one’s public life. There were three types of public arguments or speeches: the deliberative, which was used to argue a future prospect; judicial, which was used in the past tense and also to defend oneself or accuse or defend someone else; and the epideictic, which tried to convince others that someone’s actions were either praiseworthy or shameful, depending.  The object wasn’t necessarily to be right; it was whether or not one could skillfully argue their case and turn their audience to their way of thinking.

Aristotle believed that there were three means of persuasion. There was ethos, the appeal to the character of the listener or a confirmation of the character of the speaker, pathos, an appeal to the listener’s emotions, and logos, which was an appeal to the listener’s rational thought. Good arguments use at least two of these elements. Personally, I believe that the argument that would work the best would be appealing to the listener’s emotions. When a person – or even better, a group of people – has their emotions roused in your favor, they are more likely to see things your way. They might not agree once they calm down, but if all you need is to get a vote, then whether or not they agree when it is over doesn’t really matter. It may be a manipulative way to look at things, but to my mind, rhetoric is nothing more than a manipulation of words to get a desired outcome

Plato's Cave

Today we went over Plato, and one thing that I have always found interesting is his Allegory of the Cave. The idea that we are all in a cave, only seeing images against a wall, and never the real thing, and therefore can never reach enlightenment is very interesting to me. I don't actually agree with Plato, however, when he says that we shouldn't copy what we see and feel because it dilutes it's reality even more. If the only reality we know and understand is that which we see and hear, then does it matter if there is something beyond if we cannot comprehend it? Wouldn't the very fact that we perceive reality a certain way make it reality?

To make it more relevant, one could picture it as if they were solving a word search. One peers at a jumble of words for minutes, possibly even hours, seeing nothing that makes sense. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, they spot just the word that they have been looking for all along, and cannot understand how they didn't see it before. There is no cave. There is only the reality we perceive, and the reality we have yet to see. Yet until we see this new reality, the reality we know is the only reality that can be.

Introduction

Hello. I am Elizabeth Cornwell. I was born here in LA, and have lived in California City pretty much my entire life. I've always thought that when I move out of California City, I would get myself out of the state altogether, so I see no sense in transporting myself to a place with higher rent and more irritable people until I am ready to exit California for good.

I am a twenty-five year old Senior here at CSUN. How does that happen,, you might ask. Well, although I have been in college since I graduated High School, I have had to pretty much earn my degree credit by credit, working all the while to pay for it. Also, I have changed my major nearly more times than I can personally count. This last time is the winner, though - mostly because I have finally come to far to turn back. I have finally settled on Literature as my major, but I am afraid this class might be my undoing. I am not used to thinking philisophically about what I am reading, but I look forward to learning how.

This said, my personal "theory" while reading literature is a little juvenile, I have to admit. The only thing I really care about is if I am getting enjoyment out of what I am reading. Don't get me wrong, I do tend to filter some of what I see and read through a feminist lens, as the older I have gotten the more I have come to realize that inequality didn't end when women got the vote. For the most part, though, all I am really looking for is entertainment. I do think, however, that what I get our of a text might not be the same reaction that someone else has. I think that we tend to filter the things we see and hear through our own experiences, which is what makes discussions about what we do see and hear so interesting. Even the way that one person perceives the same text as their filter of experience changes. For example, last week when we looked at the visual "text" of "Doll on a Music Box" from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", I realized that when I was a kid, all I cared about was that the adults were fooling the childish king; that they get their children back and thwart this selfish man in his efforts to have all the toys in the land. Watching it again, I was aware that it could be read in many different ways - the play that they were putting on to distract the king might only be the surface of what is being said. Also, that song has been stuck in my head since we watched it, and caused me to purchase the film on DVD.

I love a good debate, and will often take an opinion opposite of my real view just to get a good dialogue going. This class seems as though it will have some pretty interesting discussions.