Reflection on my group presentation

     For my group presentation, we had a larger group than the others. In this way, it was harder to meet all at once, so we focused on emailing each other. We had a great powerpoint presentation with our individual notes submitted to one of the classmates. I enjoyed our presentation especially because I observed how six different theorists came together, or apart, all at once. It was good to be refreshed with information in a summarized way, and have the experience of teaching a whole class. It was interesting to speak out and hear so many different opinions and conclusions from both these theorists and the class all at once.
    Jean-Paul Sartre, the focus of my part in the presentation, was an interesting man to go in depth with. I realized, as did the people that study him, that he does not exactly answer his own question, "why write"? But instead he beats around the bush, lending to his purpose of having meaning end in the reader, not the author. In fact, this might be his subconscious effort to help us understand that we have to make the meaning "exist" by reading even his own open ended theory.
     One of the most interesting things I found is a point that Sartre makes about art and how he relates it to writing. He says that "we never receive from it that gaity of love. We put them into it," a subjective discovery. Since the art piece comes from the depths of our heart, we will never find anything but ourselves in it. He then relates it to reading in which "the author does not see the words as the reader does since he knows them before writing them down." He only "projects." This is an interesting statement to ponder.

Weekly Blog #1 Classical Literary Criticism

     It is interesting to see how Georgias of Leontini not only had a unique name, but had some unique views on speech. He differs from Plato's didactic view, which I found very interesting.  While most would look down upon wording ad phrasing that aims to persuade with no substane of truth, Gorgias praises it. He embraces rhetoric while Plato thinks it is utterly wrong. As he rose to be one of the most influential Sophists, we can see that there was definitely something approved and admired within his social construct and practice.
     How often do we hear that someone reads a poem and stands in awe; in agreement, but doesn't have a clue as to what it means? There is the same sort of appeal in the kind of speech pattern that Gorgias puts on a pedestal. Whether we admit it or not, there is a great commendation toward rhetoric; an approval and encouragement of it, because it has some sort of settling effect on us; a cathartic experience, and usually something to hold on to and root for at the end of a speech, for example.
      The diligent teacher is different then the great speaker. While both can collide, the teacher would have no place in rhetorical devices as a means to success, but truth revealed as a means to success. In the conviction, for example, of a stance in politics, he might spend more time researching and methodically revealing the information, while a rhetorical great speaker might spend more time on the wording and phrasing of the information, even if he had to say a speech on the spot, with little research done. He would use appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos for a strong argument, supporting what little solid facts he might have. In this scenario, the latter might easily be won by an audience of artists, but might lose in a group of politicians.
     In the case of Helen, not only do we have a speaker who is skilled with rhetoric, but a situation in which it is extremely unpolular and challanging to defend. The power of speech is highlighted here, however, to defend Helen quite eloquently.

Analysis #2 Structuralism

Structuralism is conveyed in this photo, taken by Dave Blumenkrantz, due to the juxtaposition of this soon to be mother and a machine for destruction. It creates a place to speak, to theorize, to investigate, instead of just gazing at the aesthetics. It decenters the individual portraying the self as a construct and a consequence of impersonal systems." They are not in control of their social existence, but "created by social and cultural systems, within which they are subjects" (Norton, 20) We focus on the internal approach here. What is this woman's life like? Why is a precious life about to be born next to a killing machine? What is she thinking? This evokes a string of conversation about the actual happenings within the picture, not just the composition of the picture. Rather, the composition evokes the structuralism therein. This picture poses a spectrum of possibilities as we realize the setting of her home.

Short Analysis #1 Classical Literary Criticism

Analysis on Classical Literary Criticism in viewing a scene from Good Will Hunting, analyzing Gorgias of Leontini and Platonic thought

There are many things to consider upon viewing the interview of Will Hunting for the National Security Agency. Keeping in mind Gorgias of Leontini’s thoughts, we see a character with a lot of strife and pain due to unhealed past experiences and the inhabitation of bitterness and a short temper. This doesn’t go over well with a quick-witted genius that is Will. In the encomium, we see a parallel circumstance; one in which the speaker is communicating in such an eloquent way that the audience may very well be convinced of something that is not necessarily true, and is definitely not the mainstream way of thinking in their particular cases. To defend Helen gave a place for Gorgias to, by default, prove that “the power of speech has the same effect on the disposition of the soul as the disposition of drugs on the nature of bodies” (Gorgias, 32). This argument was definitely “written with skill, not spoken with truth” in order to “displace one [opinion and] implant another” (32)

            In Will’s case, joining the NSA which is, as he says, is seven times bigger than the CIA, proving to be a widely held and accepted vocation, would be as horrific as about five terrorist and serial killer acts from one person. How did we get to this conclusion? Without going through a detailed summary, we can say that he arrived rhetorically with elegance due to a drive to persuade his audience of something. Rather, in context of the movie, we can see how desperate he is to avoid submission to authority and accept that he can enter a new world due to his rare talents. He uses his quick mind to convince his audience, including the viewers of the movie, that we really shouldn’t have anything to do with or support the NSA if there is even a chance of those horrible events playing out in real life. One reason why his speech works so well is that it appeals to the ethos, logos, and pathos. He comes off as if he has no reason not to speak his mind, for the sake of speaking his mind, not because he wants to impress them or get money out of them. He basically foregoes his chance at a very desirable job and income for the sake of not caring about what others think, and expressing himself, his “truth.” So now we believe our character, because he believes in what he is saying. He is driven because he is convicted and moved by his own ethos, logos and pathos. Within his words we are caught off guard upon hearing horrible situations in a string of events fly by so quickly we have to take a second glance. We know a lot is going on and feel horrible, we feel the pain of others and hear about situations that go on every day and there is nothing we can do about it, and widen our eyes to the fact that we might even be the catalyst. The logic behind his argument is basically undeniable. It is possible, and probably happening every day in some way or another. And so he wins us over.

            To this day, I myself feel trapped by Will’s argument, knowing full well that he was not in an unbiased, rational state of thought. It is the skill of this rhetorician in his words that is the persuasive “performance.” He is the antithesis to common thought, yet in less than two minutes had me reconsidering not only the NSA’s process of actions but any major corporation where the gears of the system, so to speak, have no part in some horrific, indirect outcome traced back to his unveiling of some code, for example. The place of uncertainty, the glue that holds Will’s argument together is uncertain things said in a certain way. What can be concluded from gathering together the pieces of this character is that, due to his intelligence and quick mind, he subconsciously constructs an enthymeme pertinent to his adamant point of view. His brokenness only lends to more of a weight on his argument, allowing himself to disregard any offensive, harsh, blunt and especially demeaning air about himself and deliver a solid, temptingly persuasive speech, just as Gorgias of Leontini did over twenty-three hundred years ago.

Introduction

I am looking forward to this class for a few reasons. When I found out we were going to be blogging, I was really excited because I love to journal, and to have a forum to visit about class seems like a great idea due to the higher guarantee of retaining so much information if it is written out. There is a lot of material to cover, starting with Plato and Aristotle, but I believe this class is very useful to critique any written work, as these theorists cover every aspect of it. I had attempted to take this class before and was overwhelmed with the information, leading to a dropping of the course. I am now attempting once more, and only once more, hopefully, because it is my last semester at CSUN. I feel as though I have been able to soak up much of the information in this class throughout my time at CSUN because of all the conversations in class. I realized how much of these theories leek in to all aspects of academia. Therefore, I hope to be diligent in reading these works and writing on this blog to have a solid lexicon of ancient thought processes that hold to be relevant, useful and rampant throughout our time today.