|
On May 06 2014 06:39 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
Anyway, Thieving Magpie since we got away from what I originally said, I never meant that I thought that writing is a waste of time. I enjoy writing and expressing my thoughts. That being said, I find the stuff that I have to write about this year to be dreadfully uninteresting and honestly pretty pointless. I don't see any point in writing about something that I'm not passionate about or want to tell other people about. That's like the purpose of writing -- to convey one's beliefs, ideas, thoughts, and passions. Presenting an argument of some kind happens to be a popular form of writing, but I don't see why writing about any of those topics would be beneficial to the people given the assignment. They don't require evidence or research and, to be completely frank, they're mostly just practice for grammar and describing personal feelings. Seems like it's mostly geared towards prepping us for college applications, but it just seems like a waste of time to write about stuff that I'm not passionate about.
Sorry if you thought that I meant writing is pointless. I do not believe that and enjoy reading and writing immensely.
Lets take, for example, an autobiography (which was one of your topics)
You literally have a main source--the autobiography. But you also have outside sources such as an actual biography, records of the persons existence, lack of records of that person's existence, that persons relevance (why even bother writing the autobiography) or his lack of relevance (this autobiography is a waste of human culture etc...)
There is SO MUCH you can talk about with that topic--especially if you don't care about it so you can actually tackle it objectively.
Happy space? You get to talk about the importance or unimportance of the human experience as it directly relates to how you affect and are affected by the reality around you? That is a gold mine of things to talk about! You literally get to present anecdotal data to present how human beings experience the world around them and use that to dictate why you even bother existing and not just kill yourself in some cold dark cellar to escape existence.
You can do SO MUCH with the topics you shared with us, the only thing that is limiting its possibilities your fear of actually talking about your thoughts and ideas.
|
On May 06 2014 06:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 06:34 ComaDose wrote:
yeah but with math its easier to construct an argument someone can't refuse; and you can also construct other things like bridges and medicine. Yeah, but with writing and literacy, you can teach your decedents math and build bridges for the rest of human existence.
having writing skills would make this easier for future generations but is not necessary while having math skills would be essential.
|
On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 01:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On May 05 2014 08:23 phar wrote:
Writing is probably the single most (academic) important thing you can learn in high school. This was definitely calculus for me. Writing is important too tho. The goal of writing is learning how to both argue ideas, as well as share them, in a way that best disperses and interrogates the knowledge so that the greater whole can partake in the knowledge each individual person accrues. The point of writing classes such as English is to show you how you can present your ideas in a way that even those who hate you can't refute. When I read that sort of stuff, I feel closer to Plato/Sokrates than ever. Writing should teach you to think, and I think neither the anglo-saxon essay nor the french dissertation achieve anything close. There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter.
I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised.
Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist.
Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language.
Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting.
|
On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 01:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 00:47 ComaDose wrote:On May 05 2014 08:23 phar wrote:
Writing is probably the single most (academic) important thing you can learn in high school. This was definitely calculus for me. Writing is important too tho. The goal of writing is learning how to both argue ideas, as well as share them, in a way that best disperses and interrogates the knowledge so that the greater whole can partake in the knowledge each individual person accrues. The point of writing classes such as English is to show you how you can present your ideas in a way that even those who hate you can't refute. When I read that sort of stuff, I feel closer to Plato/Sokrates than ever. Writing should teach you to think, and I think neither the anglo-saxon essay nor the french dissertation achieve anything close. There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting.
If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well.
If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are.
|
On May 06 2014 06:53 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 06:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:34 ComaDose wrote:
yeah but with math its easier to construct an argument someone can't refuse; and you can also construct other things like bridges and medicine. Yeah, but with writing and literacy, you can teach your decedents math and build bridges for the rest of human existence. having writing skills would make this easier for future generations but is not necessary while having math skills would be essential.
On the contrary--there's a reason Europe had to drop the Roman system for the Arabic system. There's a reason Mathematicians write books with words and explanations and not merely blank scribblings of random symbols. Clarity is the only thing that allows information to be transferred from one person to the next. Just because you ignore the clarity of writing that was given to you does not mean you get to forget it when passing it along the chain.
|
On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 01:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 00:47 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
This was definitely calculus for me. Writing is important too tho. The goal of writing is learning how to both argue ideas, as well as share them, in a way that best disperses and interrogates the knowledge so that the greater whole can partake in the knowledge each individual person accrues. The point of writing classes such as English is to show you how you can present your ideas in a way that even those who hate you can't refute. When I read that sort of stuff, I feel closer to Plato/Sokrates than ever. Writing should teach you to think, and I think neither the anglo-saxon essay nor the french dissertation achieve anything close. There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are.
So what ?
Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ?
And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy.
|
On May 06 2014 07:07 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 01:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
The goal of writing is learning how to both argue ideas, as well as share them, in a way that best disperses and interrogates the knowledge so that the greater whole can partake in the knowledge each individual person accrues. The point of writing classes such as English is to show you how you can present your ideas in a way that even those who hate you can't refute. When I read that sort of stuff, I feel closer to Plato/Sokrates than ever. Writing should teach you to think, and I think neither the anglo-saxon essay nor the french dissertation achieve anything close. There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are. So what ? Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ? And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy.
I didn't realize your teachers could understand body language in writing--or is this from speech and debate where live performance is graded as much as substance. If you wish to discuss about writing and communication stick with the topic.
The reasons teachers know when topics sound smart is because they already know ahead of time what you're going to be talking about since they've already heard it a hundred times from when they were students and when they had students. When they are happy for you it is because you were able to figure out something they already knew. Which is why they don't care how much of the already known topic you were able to figure out for your speech.
Also, want to hear a little secret? Those dumb kids in class that "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff" are given the exact same comments as you about how smart they are. Its what teachers do. I can promise you that you have not figured out or talked about something that has blown their minds outside of them being impressed that someone so uneducated as a student could string words together in a manner that isn't embarrassing.
|
On May 06 2014 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:07 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 01:31 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
When I read that sort of stuff, I feel closer to Plato/Sokrates than ever.
Writing should teach you to think, and I think neither the anglo-saxon essay nor the french dissertation achieve anything close. There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are. So what ? Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ? And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy. I didn't realize your teachers could understand body language in writing--or is this from speech and debate where live performance is graded as much as substance. If you wish to discuss about writing and communication stick with the topic. The reasons teachers know when topics sound smart is because they already know ahead of time what you're going to be talking about since they've already heard it a hundred times from when they were students and when they had students. When they are happy for you it is because you were able to figure out something they already knew. Which is why they don't care how much of the already known topic you were able to figure out for your speech. Also, want to hear a little secret? Those dumb kids in class that "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff" are given the exact same comments as you about how smart they are. Its what teachers do. I can promise you that you have not figured out or talked about something that has blown their minds outside of them being impressed that someone so uneducated as a student could string words together in a manner that isn't embarrassing.
You're hilarious. Weren't we talking about rhetoric ? Can you explain to me why I should concede to you the limit of the ssubject ?
And more importantly, can you please not assume I'm a high schooler ?
|
On May 06 2014 07:17 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 07:07 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
There are MANY forms of writing. Restricting yourself to just a few of them is like cutting off the non-dominant hand just because you prefer the dominant one. I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are. So what ? Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ? And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy. I didn't realize your teachers could understand body language in writing--or is this from speech and debate where live performance is graded as much as substance. If you wish to discuss about writing and communication stick with the topic. The reasons teachers know when topics sound smart is because they already know ahead of time what you're going to be talking about since they've already heard it a hundred times from when they were students and when they had students. When they are happy for you it is because you were able to figure out something they already knew. Which is why they don't care how much of the already known topic you were able to figure out for your speech. Also, want to hear a little secret? Those dumb kids in class that "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff" are given the exact same comments as you about how smart they are. Its what teachers do. I can promise you that you have not figured out or talked about something that has blown their minds outside of them being impressed that someone so uneducated as a student could string words together in a manner that isn't embarrassing. You're hilarious. Weren't we talking about rhetoric ? Can you explain to me why I should concede to you the limit of the ssubject ? And more importantly, can you please not assume I'm a high schooler ?
I wasn't assuming you were a high schooler. 99% of undergrads and a great deal of graduate students I find to be very dim witted and have no idea what they were talking about.
You're the one complaining that your speech class, speech being a performative medium, asks for you to have the capabilities of performance in your medium. You complaining that you shouldn't be interesting to your audience when making a speech is liking complaining that you have to use words when writing a sentence. Its the whole point of the medium.
Your distaste for the mechanics of the medium in which you're communicating while in search for validation that your opinions contain a supposed "truth" if laughable because if you're unable to prove your truth to others how the hell were you able to prove it to yourself outside of blind faith?
Here is the problem with Plato's concept of idealized truth--it is idealized from the get go and requires for you to maintain the assumption that within the confines of your experience with said truth that you have come upon something so factual as its mere existence is able to bend the will of others without a need of actually learning a medium in which to convey that information. The reality is that no one ever knows if they have found something empirically true and can only, to the best of their ability, discuss the things that they can prove to be the case within the confines of their limited experience. The things they are arguing for today can be disproved the next day, and then that new truth can be disproved again and again as the human race in its search for ideal truth have to constantly break down the current understandings to make way for new information. Which is the importance of rhetoric to begin with. How true what you're talking is is in the end irrelevant. Everything we know to be obvious and factually true today, can be backwards and wrong by tomorrow. We as a society must learn how to defend out stances, and not simply blindly hold on to only the things we are interested in.
|
On May 06 2014 07:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:17 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 07:07 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 04:47 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
I'm not even sure what you're argument here is. I was making a reference to Plato's anti-rhetoric dialogue and his many reproaches against sophists, who did not care about truth but about manipulating the crowd. Making people write about subjects they don't care and don't know much about so that they can learn to argue about anything and " present their ideas in a way that even those who hate them can't refute" sounds like learning to write the worst kind of sophistry to me. Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are. So what ? Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ? And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy. I didn't realize your teachers could understand body language in writing--or is this from speech and debate where live performance is graded as much as substance. If you wish to discuss about writing and communication stick with the topic. The reasons teachers know when topics sound smart is because they already know ahead of time what you're going to be talking about since they've already heard it a hundred times from when they were students and when they had students. When they are happy for you it is because you were able to figure out something they already knew. Which is why they don't care how much of the already known topic you were able to figure out for your speech. Also, want to hear a little secret? Those dumb kids in class that "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff" are given the exact same comments as you about how smart they are. Its what teachers do. I can promise you that you have not figured out or talked about something that has blown their minds outside of them being impressed that someone so uneducated as a student could string words together in a manner that isn't embarrassing. You're hilarious. Weren't we talking about rhetoric ? Can you explain to me why I should concede to you the limit of the ssubject ? And more importantly, can you please not assume I'm a high schooler ? I wasn't assuming you were a high schooler. 99% of undergrads and a great deal of graduate students I find to be very dim witted and have no idea what they were talking about. You're the one complaining that your speech class, speech being a performative medium, asks for you to have the capabilities of performance in your medium. You complaining that you shouldn't be interesting to your audience when making a speech is liking complaining that you have to use words when writing a sentence. Its the whole point of the medium. Your distaste for the mechanics of the medium in which you're communicating while in search for validation that your opinions contain a supposed "truth" if laughable because if you're unable to prove your truth to others how the hell were you able to prove it to yourself outside of blind faith? Here is the problem with Plato's concept of idealized truth--it is idealized from the get go and requires for you to maintain the assumption that within the confines of your experience with said truth that you have come upon something so factual as its mere existence is able to bend the will of others without a need of actually learning a medium in which to convey that information. The reality is that no one ever knows if they have found something empirically true and can only, to the best of their ability, discuss the things that they can prove to be the case within the confines of their limited experience. The things they are arguing for today can be disproved the next day, and then that new truth can be disproved again and again as the human race in its search for ideal truth have to constantly break down the current understandings to make way for new information. Which is the importance of rhetoric to begin with. How true what you're talking is is in the end irrelevant. Everything we know to be obvious and factually true today, can be backwards and wrong by tomorrow. We as a society must learn how to defend out stances, and not simply blindly hold on to only the things we are interested in.
Wow, the length you have to get with you to get a real answer from you... And thanks for calling me dim witted, I appreciate it greatly. For still not understanding my point, and keeping assuming stuff (it wasn't a "speech class", god knows I wouldn't take something called this way, and nor am I in complete agreement with Plato, with which you don't really engage anyway) instead of trying to understand my point.
As for your views about epistemology, I've never come across those before, I'm amazed about how smart you are. Call me when someone has disproved Pythagora's theorem, or when you learn that the second world war didn't happen. "How true what you're talking is is in the end irrelevant", keep telling you that, you're a great human being.
Edit : and as I was too preocupied with your intent to insult me, I forgot to add that your point about a lot of grad students being often stupid is moot (even if it's one sentence I agree with, wow), because it doesnt disprove the fact that I might have said some "interesting" things.
|
|
|
On May 06 2014 07:36 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 07:17 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 07:07 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 07:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 06 2014 06:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On May 06 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Just because one believes what one perceives as true, one knows not truly if his truth is more true than the truth of others. To find truth one must discuss and search by peering and dialectical with the observations and perceived truths of others. Blanking one's self to the opinions of others just because its, as you said, "about subjects they don't care and don't know much about" is more a perversion of truth than anything else in existence. See, you seem to be taking precisely Protagoras' position. On the other hand you completely misunderstand mine. I've never said one should agree with others because they don't know much about it, on the contrary... The point of good argumentation and good discourse is knowing how to communicate. The rules of communication remains the same whether you write about things you care about or things you don't care about. The only way to know how to communicate well is to practice to write. In which case, it doesn't matter whether you're writing about things you care about, or things you don't care about. Being against the practice and learning of rhetoric is being against the practice of communication and discourse. You should always be willing to talk about things you don't care about since that is the only way to learn and push forward things that matter. I completely disagree from beginning to the end. But you're the product of what you advocate, so I'm not surprised. Reminds me of that brilliant comment I had after an oral "You're not very good at communicating, so people won't listen to you,, but you say very smart and interesting stuff". The contradiction is glaring here, but we try very hard to convince people it doesn't exist. Language is not a mere tool, it's not a hammer. You think with language. Also you dropped the "don't know about" part, interesting. If I told you I was a duck, and I really meant to say I am human, then its my fault for not communicating well. If you're teachers are telling you that you don't know how to talk despite the facts you have--they are slapping you in the face and you don't even realize they are. So what ? Not really, because for one I talk very well, I just have "bad body language" and I'm "not confident enough". It's not a question of fact at all you know. My point was : if I'm so bad at communicating, how do they know I'm saying smart stuff ? Obviously, you might think they were saying that to be nice, but then, why would they mark me well anyway ? And why do some people get very good mark for saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes ? This is nothing short of promoting idiocy. I didn't realize your teachers could understand body language in writing--or is this from speech and debate where live performance is graded as much as substance. If you wish to discuss about writing and communication stick with the topic. The reasons teachers know when topics sound smart is because they already know ahead of time what you're going to be talking about since they've already heard it a hundred times from when they were students and when they had students. When they are happy for you it is because you were able to figure out something they already knew. Which is why they don't care how much of the already known topic you were able to figure out for your speech. Also, want to hear a little secret? Those dumb kids in class that "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff" are given the exact same comments as you about how smart they are. Its what teachers do. I can promise you that you have not figured out or talked about something that has blown their minds outside of them being impressed that someone so uneducated as a student could string words together in a manner that isn't embarrassing. You're hilarious. Weren't we talking about rhetoric ? Can you explain to me why I should concede to you the limit of the ssubject ? And more importantly, can you please not assume I'm a high schooler ? I wasn't assuming you were a high schooler. 99% of undergrads and a great deal of graduate students I find to be very dim witted and have no idea what they were talking about. You're the one complaining that your speech class, speech being a performative medium, asks for you to have the capabilities of performance in your medium. You complaining that you shouldn't be interesting to your audience when making a speech is liking complaining that you have to use words when writing a sentence. Its the whole point of the medium. Your distaste for the mechanics of the medium in which you're communicating while in search for validation that your opinions contain a supposed "truth" if laughable because if you're unable to prove your truth to others how the hell were you able to prove it to yourself outside of blind faith? Here is the problem with Plato's concept of idealized truth--it is idealized from the get go and requires for you to maintain the assumption that within the confines of your experience with said truth that you have come upon something so factual as its mere existence is able to bend the will of others without a need of actually learning a medium in which to convey that information. The reality is that no one ever knows if they have found something empirically true and can only, to the best of their ability, discuss the things that they can prove to be the case within the confines of their limited experience. The things they are arguing for today can be disproved the next day, and then that new truth can be disproved again and again as the human race in its search for ideal truth have to constantly break down the current understandings to make way for new information. Which is the importance of rhetoric to begin with. How true what you're talking is is in the end irrelevant. Everything we know to be obvious and factually true today, can be backwards and wrong by tomorrow. We as a society must learn how to defend out stances, and not simply blindly hold on to only the things we are interested in. Wow, the length you have to get with you to get a real answer from you... And thanks for calling me dim witted, I appreciate it greatly. For still not understanding my point, and keeping assuming stuff (it wasn't a "speech class", god knows I wouldn't take something called this way, and nor am I in complete agreement with Plato, with which you don't really engage anyway) instead of trying to understand my point. As for your views about epistemology, I've never come across those before, I'm amazed about how smart you are. Call me when someone has disproved Pythagora's theorem, or when you learn that the second world war didn't happen. "How true what you're talking is is in the end irrelevant", keep telling you that, you're a great human being. Edit : and as I was too preocupied with your intent to insult me, I forgot to add that your point about a lot of grad students being often stupid is moot (even if it's one sentence I agree with, wow), because it doesnt disprove the fact that I might have said some "interesting" things.
It wasn't a speech class? Then tell me what writing class you took that cared about your body language, the writing class you took where your classmates were "saying completely idiotic or unintersting stuff in a very confident manner with a few jokes" while you, with your "truths" were above them all. Tell me what class it was then?
Also, call you when someone's disproved the Pythagorean theorem? That the second world war didn't happen? Do you even know how many papers and articles I have read actually talking about things such as ww2 not really being something that happened? Papers of people showing their proof that slavery wasn't really a thing in america and that Lincoln was simply overreaching his govermental powers for show? A hundred, two hundred years from now the only things we will have that lets us know that these things are True are the writings available to us and how convincing they are in their explanations. We *know* that world war 2 happened because of eye witness testimonies. Two hundreds years from now those eye witnesses will not be there anymore. We might not have the books on it anymore. We might, we might not. 300 years from now the only thing we'll have about that skirmish between white people centuries ago are the writings of today being hopefully clear enough for the people in the future to understand. For the same reason that we still read Plato and not some other random Greek as if Plato and Aristotle were the *only* greeks to have ever written anything. What gets passed down the centuries is that which we pass down that can be understood, that can be communicated. You knowing how truthy it is now means absolute shit since tomorrow that might not be the case.
And I did not call you dim witted, I called most grad students dim witted. If you feel that is a personal attack on you then don't think so highly of yourself. Most grad students are dumb--that's why they're in school learning and researching. If you think you're above that then its no wonder why you don't care about the art of articulation and believe that so long as you have "truth" that you never need to actually master any medium of communication at all.
It happens all the time. Those "truths" are being argued about ALL THE TIME. Heck, just look back on history to see over and over again how "scientific truths" are constantly wrong once new evidence emerges. Are you even aware that this is happening?
|
On May 06 2014 07:37 AlternativeEgo wrote:
You guys are boring.
We are the only ones sticking to the topic of this thread 
|
Has anyone thought how differently our world would be if everyone had webbed digits and wings? Like, we would be able to fly everywhere so our use of fossil fuels would be limited. Science, get on that.
|
On May 06 2014 08:20 vult wrote:
Has anyone thought how differently our world would be if everyone had webbed digits and wings? Like, we would be able to fly everywhere so our use of fossil fuels would be limited. Science, get on that.
Something not even that dramatic, imagine how different everything would be if we were just on average 1-2 feet shorter, since everything is built for the size we were.
|
I'm thinking of starting to grow vegetables in my yard, if I were to start tomorrow what would be in season?
|
Does chlorine stop natural hair growth? I'm not sure why my hair isn't growing, but it's definitely slightly shorter than it was ~4 months ago (used to be slightly past the ears, now it's barely touching them). If so, I'm hoping I can finally grow out my hair to its full length once I drop swimming.
|
|
|
On May 06 2014 12:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Does chlorine stop natural hair growth? I'm not sure why my hair isn't growing, but it's definitely slightly shorter than it was ~4 months ago (used to be slightly past the ears, now it's barely touching them). If so, I'm hoping I can finally grow out my hair to its full length once I drop swimming.
How old are you? This might be a natural phenomena.
|
Say I were to get eaten by a great-white shark. The shark was coming right at me and, in a fit of desperation, I swam directly into its mouth to avoid getting chomped to bits. I've successfully managed to avoid getting chewed up from the shark's teeth, but I've still technically just gotten eaten. I grab a knife and start stabbing the shark from the inside. The shark dies and while it drifts slowly down to the sea-floor, I pry open its mouth and escape, harm-free.
Is this within the realm of possibilities? Like, what about if it were a midget scuba-diver, so it'd be even easier to get eaten unharmed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
