Do we really need all this stuff?

"Art as a Technique" by Shlkovsky is one of the most interesting reads I've come across in a while, particularly concerning the part of Tolstoy making the familiar unfamiliar. In some parts it almost makes me consider Marxist theory because of the idea that we as humans might simply own only the things we produce or inhabit. A laborer does not own the products of their labor because he or she is usually working for someone else, which might be the case of the person who tends to the horse but is not the actual owner of the horse in Tolstoy's story. It is possibly one of the few aspects of Marxism and of familiarizing/de-familiarizing that I find simultaneously depressing and inspiring.

It isn't possible, really, in such a capitalist country to resort to selling and buy things from the person who actually made them with their own hands because we all demand so much. If we resorted back to this style, we could not in fact own as much as we do. I could not own this laptop because if it existed at all it would probably cost too much. I could try to make it myself but that would mean most people would have to know how to make their own cell phones and their own refrigerators.

But all of that comes down to desire. Should we, as capitalists, work on not desiring so much? It's the disease that spreads throughout many layers of our society. We desire so much in so many different areas of our lives that many of us are never satisfied. At this rate, the only thing we're teaching future generations is that the more you gain, the happier you'll be, even if you never again pay attention to half the things you purchase. Certainly no one would be happy living off of only what is necessary, such as food and shelter, but do we need five televisions on a three bedroom apartment? Do we need that brand new iPod even though our one year-old iPod is functioning perfectly? It seems to me that when you begin to own too many things by some form of decree, like a paper stating your ownership, then you're going way too far off the mark to be healthy. My best example would be if you own a home you never inhabit. Why own a home you never go to, that is only inhabited by people who keep it clean but don't consider it their own homes either? Isn't that unhealthy for you, that you desired a new home so much you decided you couldn't just have one?

I think there's something to be said over trying to keep with what we actually produce at a practical level. I can't produce my television, but at least I can try to keep the count of what I won and did not produce relatively low. I think, in the end, this would make for a happier mentality.

Is the sublime universal or personal?

When discussing ideas on what counts as being sublime and what doesn't, I wonder on whether or not we should ever categorize anything as sublime depending on how many people see it this way. There have been many discussions in what constitutes sublimity and what doesn't, in our English class for example it was clear that some did not agree with others on what a sublime moment was because it's all dependent on taste, perception and position relating to the sublime subject. I feel that the sublime can quite honestly be down to someone that only one person feels is sublime.

Personally, there are many things I encounter in films and in books that I find to be sublime time and time again even though others may not feel the same thing. Then of course there are sublime moments in which millions agree with me on its sublimity. Does my own small sublime moment become any less valuable? I don't think so, although I'm sure many would argue that a sublime moment requires a majority opinion. However, I see the concept of the sublime as I see the concept of beauty, which is that it is in the eye of the beholder and nothing else.

Analysis 1: The Art of Persuasion

The above video works to illustrate Aristotle's ideas on rhetoric by showing us an example of a speaker who is persuasive because of reasons outside of his actual rhetoric (or at least along with his rhetoric). It comes down often to things such as establishing a credible identity. In Obama's case it can be many things, such as his youth, his attractiveness, and his race. As an excerpt from Aristotle's Book II says, "for it makes much difference in regard to persuasion (especially in deliberations but also in trials) that the speaker seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way". Obama made much of the youth in this country feel as though he was inclined towards caring what their opinions are, since in the video he mentions the supposed apathy of youth.
It is also greatly about presentation, not simply the persuasiveness of the content alone. Content can be extremely persuasive, but it can be delivered horribly and thus not actually achieve its goal of persuading anyone. There is an importance in being charismatic and the loss of elections are often due to lack of charisma, and this is illustrated in the importance of good speeches and good orators in our political system. Barack Obama is a great example of how presentation works in terms of being persuasive, because many times before his specific wording and general ideas have been compared to that of politicians such as former president Bush. While Bush and Obama shared the same ideas in some cases and even at times the same phrases or terms, many responded more positively to Obama because of the way in which he appealed to them. His physical features were important in that he was youthful and handsome, but it also mattered that he had a knack for public speaking, and at times it simply mattered that his voice was more appealing to people than that of Bush’s.
There is also the importance of the audience’s emotions. You can also look to politics here in that many times the audience, the United States for example, is inclined to a certain political party simply because they have lost their faith in the way of the old party. This is temporary, however, and stems from a feeling of disappointment in that the current party did not deliver what they promised. Politicians often use this to their advantage, knowing that the American people are tired of specific things, such as financial deficits and wars.
Credibility of character is also important here in that it is often valuable in persuading people of criminal cases for example by establishing some form of a personality for the people involved by either demonizing someone or making them look like victims, even if they were absolutely guilty of the crime, the jury and/or judge might still rule in favor of them deciding that it’s possible the crime was truly not their fault because something else might have been at play that affected them in some way that was out of their control, since their character implies that normally they would not have committed such a crime at all. Some might want to claim this is sneaky, but the truth is that it works on the best of us.


"Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech pt 1/2 " 04 November 2008. YouTube. 6 February 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKFYDbqUC4&feature=related

On the Gorgias Helen

I wonder how well Gorgias' defense of Helen was received at the time of him writing this considering how silly I find it to be now. I'm certainly not one to place blame on Helen when thinking of this story, the story of Helen of Troy, but his defense of "Well if it's the gods' will!" doesn't really hold well. If you kept that idea around then no one's behavior would ever be excusable or inexcusable because they'd all be pawns of the gods.
I'd rather agree with the idea that a good speech may have convinced her of leaving her home. Gorgias mentions the possibility of her running away for love, and how often do we know of stories in which a man or a woman (usually a woman) is persuaded by some well-prepared speech of deep love and admiration? Many argue that this is what happened with Juliet in the case of her and Romeo's tragedy. His speech of complete adoration convinced her to follow through with a series of events that eventually led to both their deaths. As Gorgias puts it, "speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body" (39). I don't agree with the way that he follows his argument in saying that Helen being compelled by a speech is just about the same as forcing her to follow along. One can be manipulated, but one cannot be outright controlled. Was she manipulated? Possibly, but part of the blame in this argument should then be laid on her for not keeping her senses about her. Many people learn to push against persuasion in their lives, many stories in fact illustrate heroes pushing against persuasion from the gods themselves, so why should Helen get a free pass if someone was particularly convincing? Not that she's the most to blame here, because the other person, her persuader, would be the greater villain here for attempting in the first place.
My point here is simply that I don't think a speech, however great the speech, can be used to blame the speaker for the actions of those persuaded. I think a speech is incredibly strong and is capable of convincing people to do things, but I think it only plays one role in manipulation along with several other factors and I believe those factors should always be taken into consideration.

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

Everything is relative, even this theory.

This is my blog for English 436: Major Critical Theories.

During our first lecture we were asked to consider what our "theory" is. Although most of the class seemed unsure what was meant by this question, some of managed to jot down a few ideas. I personally wrote that my theory was that everything is relative. A person can have a theory on any given thing in this world, and chances are it will not be infallible in some way. Perhaps someone has a theory or personal belief on anything regarding murder. One might ask, "Is murder always wrong?" and this person may reply with a yes, but then come to find that there are some situations in which it isn't entirely wrong. These would be extreme situations, sure, but they'd still apply.

I chose this "theory" simply because I dislike having an unchanging, non-developing view of the world. I feel that if I choose to say that one single idea is absolutely true then I'm not allowing myself to be flexible. I am narrowing my ability to be open-minded about any given thing. In general I think it's a good idea for people to discuss or consider anything with the notion that what their initial beliefs are could be proven to be incorrect at any moment.

This is not to say that I think no one should ever stay true to their personal beliefs or be loyal to their way of thinking, I just think that everyone should be their own personal watch dog; that they should police their own thoughts by looking for instances in which they're being obtuse or closed-minded. If members of our political system thought this way, for example, we might get a lot more done much more quickly. Much of this world's problems come from people refusing to be swayed from their personal beliefs even when those beliefs are damaging others around them. Even those who have great belief systems can still fall under the category of someone who is closed-minded if they are the type to never reconsider anything at all. It makes them bad candidates for attempts at open discussions in our political system or in anything else in our world.

So my theory is that everything is relative, and it gives me more freedom to analyze things as they're presented to me, case-by-case. It keeps me from shutting myself off from open discussion, and it keeps others from being discouraged when discussing things with me. No one can ever talk about anything after all if you have on person refusing to listen and another person refusing to speak. I think it's a way many people should think, although of course I could be completely wrong in that idea.