Another Common Fallacious Argument [2]

  

     Often, I notice that people use euphemisms when making a reference to a serious matter. They do this in order to make their argument sound stronger and create the appearance of a good argument. However this is very fallacious because it is essentially lying or making something sound good when it is not. Some examples of a euphemism used in this way: The lab rat wasn't killed, it was sacrificed. The death of innocent bystanders is collateral damage. Mass murder wasn't genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. and so forth. I do think that euphemisms are great tools to use in writing or sometimes when expressing a concern; however, this is not a good method to utilize when conducting an argument because it can often make you appear weak. Just by using semantics and calling one thing another, one cannot create a deeper or more concrete argument but actually the opposite. When one uses a euphemism the argument becomes dull and perhaps in these examples, atrocious. Again, euphemisms themselves are not fallacious, but often when used in an argument it can make one appear biased.

The Common Fallacious Argument

  

     I came across an Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man) recently when studying common fallacies in arguments. The Ad Hominem argument is attacking the person rather than the person's argument itself. The argument was in response to a woman advocating vegetarianism. The man speaking to her was against vegetarianism and made an attack upon the vegetarian's insecurity, rather than actually retorting to her argument. The fallacious arguer  asked, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes ?" and this statement has nothing to do with how vegetarianism can be arguably good for one's body or the environment. Regardless if this vegetarian woman wore leather shoes that does not mean that she is not supporting vegetarianism. Therefore, the one against vegetarianism uses an Ad Hominem argument with the bit about leather shoes because he is attacking the vegetarian's character, honesty, and prying upon an insecurity.

English 102: A Reflection

     It is quite uncanny that our class is already over and that this is my last assignment for our short summer intercession. We studied many works from different backgrounds such Greek drama to the English Renaissance, and in a short time. I am definitely going to remember this class because it is what dragged me back to reading books again. Before this class I had defaulted upon reading literature, unless for classes; however, now I want to read for pure enjoyment and for the betterment of my own vocabulary. I feel that reading more will make me a stronger person, mentally, and allow me to focus on things better. I was also introduced to some famous poetry, and writers, that I had not read yet. Plays like Oedipus and reading Edgar Allan Poe's "Annabel Lee' really left an impact on me. I will forever be permitted to say that I have read such works and I can speak in intellectual discussions regarding them. This introduction to famous literature and other materials helped me to realize that there is a lot of religious symbolism in poetry, plays, and other short stories. I feel better adapted and even equipped to analyze any symbolic readings. All in all, I enjoyed this class very much; indeed, the professor was helpful and I felt a fair grader. While the final and mid-term was a curved grade, I thought that knowing the quotes cut from the reading, on the tests was a bit tough for me to get exactly right. However tough it was at times, I did take much good from his class and I value my experience this semester.

William Shakespeare's "The Tempest" - Lighthearted or a Serious Drama?

     "The Tempest" by William Shakespeare is a more lighthearted, escapist work than a serious drama because the story ends happily, in my opinion. In the beginning there is immediate conflict with a boat wreckage and Prospero telling his sad life story to his daughter Miranda. Indeed, while these factors indicate undertones of a serious drama, I believe that because the story ends on a happy note, that "The Tempest" is a much more lighthearted play. It ended happily as Prospero reclaimed his title as Duke of Milan and his own daughter married the Duke of Naples' son. Not only does Prospero regain his power, but his daughter's new found relationship with Ferdinand (son of the Duke of Naples) expels any animosity between Prospero and the Duke of Naples. While the supernatural regarding spirit-ism and magic can often relay themes of evil or negativity, "The Tempest" delves into the matter quite smoothly and gives a pretty picture of spirit-ism with its own example of Ariel. Ariel is described as kind, wanting to be freed, and benevolent. This description of such a spirit does not give credence to equivocating spirits with devils, but does indicate a more lighthearted view of magic and spirit ism.  Therefore, while the subject matter is heavy in its material and subjects, it is lighthearted because of its presentation of such topics. It is also very escapist in its approach because it is so fantastic. The nature of it is fantasy and therefore this may allow readers to find their own escape upon reading, or watching the play of  Shakespeare's "The Tempest."

Themes from "A Doll's House"

     Many familiar themes sporadically came to my mind when reading Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House." Indeed, much like in the short stories we read earlier this Summer session, including: "Chrysanthemums," "A Rose for Emily," and a "Yellow Wallpaper", a woman is portrayed stuck in a societal rubric that is very patriarchal.  Nora is in a very controlling relationship with her husband Helmer. While he is very loving, not abusive, supports her financially, and shelters her, he is controlling as a father would act to a young daughter. He treats her as she is a child and eventually this culminates into events that end with Nora leaving her controlling husband at the story's end. I would compare Ibsen's "A Doll's House" mostly to "A Yellow Wallpaper" because while the husband is controlling, he is doing it for a number of mildly intentioned reasons. Firstly, in both stories, the husbands wish to help their wives; indeed, both husbands are 'controlling' because this is how they show their love to their wives. The second aspect one should consider is the societal morals that were in play in the cultures that inspired both stories. Woman were very subservient and had a much smaller voice in the household (as well as society) in comparison to today.

Oedipus: A Tragic Figure

     Oedipus is truly a character defined by tragedy. In Sophocles' story, Oedipus is cursed at birth. Jocasta, his mother, reveals that a prophesy was foretold at his birth indicating that Oedipus would murder his own father, Lauis. Oedipus as a King was very stubborn when it came to these prophesies and would simply not believe that he was the reason for the ills that plagued Thebes. Oedipus' stubborn nature was what Aristotle would call Oedipus' tragic flaw. Indeed, Aristotle believed that tragic figures had these flaws that helped define them. Oedipus was so stubborn that he would blame his own brother-in-law for some of the wretched prophesies that were made concerning Oedipus. He would also refrain from believing them until they began to reveal themselves as truth. Oedipus was a tragic figure not only because of his revealed cursed prophesy at birth but also because of his incestial marriage with his own mother. This action was terribly tragic for Oedipus and highlights just how disturbing and perhaps cursed Oedipus had been. Oedipus also soon found out that he was lied to his entire life and that his true father was indeed Laius, a man who he killed just as the initial prophesy unraveled. Oedipus was a tragic figure from the beginning and had a tragic flaw of stubbornness. I suppose one moral that may be taken from such a story may be that human beings should not deal with the supernatural like these characters did through oracles whom were supposedly channeling Gods.

Moral Issue into a Drama

   One problem that I noticed with translating a moral issue into a drama in class was that not everyone in my group seemed to understand the instructions. Iit appeared my group members did not understand what a drama was; indeed, while lectures can become repetitive, students need to do their homework prior to entering the classroom. For example, not everyone understood that each member of the group was to have their own character in the drama. Although we created a story together about Mr. GoodStudent and the distractions that stopped him from studying, not everyone in our group had a part. Thinking about my experience,  there must have been some miscommunication involved. However I did feel that this exercise was a good model to learn different aspects of dram because instead of just a lecture on the material, the students are actually involved in the material that is being  learned. It worked as a drama even though our attempt on borderline amateurish; indeed, all in all our classroom dramas were great ways for us to truly experience what is known as a drama.

"Annabel Lee" by Edger Allan Poe: My Change in Opinion

     Edgar Allan Poe's "Annabel Lee" was a terrific poem that is truly defined by Poe's eccentricity and ideas as a composer. One major understanding one must realize when reading "Annabel Lee" is that the poem was largely influenced by ideals from the Romanticist Era. When I first read the poem, a poem that was recommended to me by my girlfriend, I thought it must be a very interesting poem. Possible symbolism and metaphors stood out to me; however, the most triumphant characteristic to win over my attention was the influence from the Romanticist era. Before reading the poem, I had no pre-cognitive idea of what this poem was truly about and what the specific ideas signified. After understanding Poe's background, understanding the Romanticist Era (Late 18th century to early 19th century), and realizing the connection between the two, I was able to not only type a gratifying essay, but also gain a greater understanding of "Annabel Lee."

William Shakespere - Let me not to the Marriage of True Minds

 

       I found Shakespeare's Let me not to the Marriage of True Minds perhaps the most difficult to truly understand at first glance. Indeed the poem was very metaphorical in its essence and he uses many obscure descriptions to talk about his interpretation of love. After understanding the sonnet, I was able to truly appreciate his work, its message, and indeed agree with his interpretation. He ends the poem by with a heroic couplet that says, "If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved." I completely sympathize with what he is saying here. I believe he is saying that if he is proven wrong in his interpretation of love, then love must have never existed in the first place. This shows how passionate Shakespeare was about love. The only questions that arose while reading this poem involved his symbolism such as when he mentions a sickles compass. This was later revealed in class, that the sickle is symbolic of people such as the grim reaper, or more intentionally time; however, the sonnet is still open for interpretation.

Learning Through the Process of drafting Essay One

Reading Ivan Ilych! (haha).

     During the drafting process of my first essay of this summer English course, I was able to gather my thoughts thoroughly by reading my writing out loud just to make certain that it was sensible and was concise. The revising process began once I had my essay read in class during the peer review, I received some constructive criticism from one student who really had an impact. He told me that I had plenty of great ideas and a point of view that deserved to be read; however, he felt I was not being decisive enough with what I believed. He told me that if I really believed the light inside of the Clean Well-Lighted Place represented God and the coffee shop represented Heaven then I should be more decisive about it instead of indicating the possibility that my opinion was wrong. I believed that it was, after all, only my opinion, but it the peer exchange in class allowed me to have an epiphany of sorts. I know understand that whether or not I am absolutely 'right' is irrelevant; indeed, the important part is that I do have my own opinion on what is read and that I should tell the readers what I think. I also continued my revising process by visiting a tutor at the TLC (Tutor, Learning Center) having another student who is, most likely, studying to get an English degree. The tutor there gave me plenty of suggestions that I was able to utilize and create an overall good paper for my first essay of English 102.

Ivan Ilych: A Simply, ordinary life is terrible?

     I believe that the quote from the beginning of Chapter Two of The Death of Ivan Ilych, "Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible" (Tolstoy) is Tolstoy trying to foreshadow Ivan Ilych's perspective on life later on in the novel. During the last few chapters, we see Ivan Ilych completely question weather he had lived his life the right way. It is not to say that Ivan Ilych had indeed lived a terrible life; however, it does specify probably one of the biggest questions from the story. Did Ivan Ilych live his life correctly, and was it so terrible? Ivan truly suffers with this idea that he had not lived his life the correct way or that his life would be meaningless.

Another way of perceiving the beginning of Chapter 2 could be to take the quotation as a summary of Chapter 1. In Chapter 1, the readers see that nobody truly cared about Ivan Ilych at his funeral and that therefore perhaps his life was simply and ordinary and therefore most terrible.

The Yellow Wallpaper: A First Person Narrative

     The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses first person narration to allow readers to go into the woman's head and understand what she is perceiving more clearly. Although the main character is not very coherent and is crazy, the first person narration does indeed make it clearer to understand the character because the reader can therefore realize just how crazy she is sounding. The first person narration also makes is much easier for readers to sympathize and conceive an emotional link with the main character. 

     Perhaps the only downside to the first person narration here is that the views of John and other characters are biased to the woman's perception. We, the reader, are depending on this crazy's woman's point of view when she is obviously insane. However, because she is crazy and we are inside of her head, so to speak, it makes the story all the more interesting and definitely makes this story stand out.

A Rose for Emily: The Timeline and its effect

     William Faulkner's A Rose for Emily is a very interesting short story that deserves some attention. One reason is stands out from other stories is that it does not go in chronological order. The story is broken up within its timeline; indeed, Faulkner's story does not go in order calling readers to truly analyze his intentions in doing this. The timeline is a great way to entice the reader into understanding the actual theme I feel Faulkner was trying to convey. I believe Faulkner wants to display the power of death. This is evident as Emily Grierson's death is the first sequential event to occur when the story begins. Death is also conveyed powerful as Emily has a weird relationship with dead men throughout the story.

   


















     When I read A Rose for Emily it caught me quite odd that the story was in such an order. At first, the story develops smoothly but then it definitely is noticeable that Faulkner purposely wanted the order out of place. The reason for this is ambiguous and for readers to decide for themselves. In my opinion, he wanted to display significance to certain aspects such as death and perhaps for a different perspective on what happened. This is a great writing tool because it allows readers to put the story in order themselves therefore involving the reader into his story.

The Daily Show with John Stewart: Lessons on Critical Thinking

     There are a number of special lessons one may ascertain from watching this episode of The Daily Show regarding critical thinking. First and foremost, John Stewart, the host of the show, does a standout job criticizing a well-liked and known television station in CNN. He discredits them by making them pointing out moments where their reporting appears unfounded. Stewart also laughs hysterically as CNN analysts continually "leave it there" at the end of each segment. A lesson to be learned here indeed, in my opinion. From my own experiences, many people who watch headline news channels seem to have be at a consensus that Fox News is biased with a Republican point of view, MSNBC is widely viewed a station with strictly Liberal views on matters, and that CNN  is in the middle and the most unbiased of the bunch. Because many hold this viewpoint, no one really criticizes CNN's reporting as it is seen as the most unbiased. However, John Stewart teaches everyone a lesson that critical analysis is definitely needed on especially trusted sources.

      By discrediting CNN, John Stewart is certainly teaching viewers to think for themselves and question information given to them. I commend Stewart for this broad endeavor, even if done through comedic display. Indeed, critical thinking involves much more than criticizing unfamiliar work but also critically thinking and analyzing trusted sources  that no one else seems to question.