As we read the Books of Nephi we quickly see that Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto the Lord. We could attribute this to difficulty of the demands, and they use this as an excuse, but why would they refuse a meager temporal means in search of eternal gain? Why are we persuaded to do the same? Throughout this essay analysis will be given as to why we accept the merely earthly, and how persuasion and rhetoric using empathy and the spirit can assist us.
One of the prevalent features of rhetoric and persuasion that it is emphasized in the Writing and Rhetoric book that we read through is that rhetoric, and by consequence persuasion, is usually aiming to convince someone of one perspective or framework. However, one of the main features that we usually don't recognize or consciously focus on, is that we only try to convince someone of some perspective if we know it is in our own self interest to present it. Remarks could be made that this is untrue, citing examples like self sacrifice, but if we truly think about these things what more are they but an attempt to achieve a new equilibrium where prediction becomes easier, and order is better maintained? God intends these to be outcomes of righteous action. We see that generally when the actions of Nephi are emulated by the rest of the group, peace and order ensue. In the book Paved With Good Intentions, by C.S. Lewis, 2 devils are discussing the way that God is actually a hedonist. They interfere in the terrestrial world and obscure our perspective though. By succumbing to the lower sensual hedonist we all possess, we fall to the trap of Old Scratch. Righteous action according to principles of the Gospel is the way that we achieve the higher form of self interest that God intends. Laman and Lemuel lacked the necessary insight into true hedonism, because they refused to discern self interest. Temporal and eternal blessings always ensue righteous action, it's just a matter of perspective. Empathetic perspective allows us to view blessings that are usually unseen, and prove effective in rhetoric and persuasion.
Using empathy and understanding as a means to the deconstruction of ideology is crucial. In the reading that we recently did in Writing and Rhetoric strong insight was given regarding understanding others. In a lecture by Slavoj Zizek, he cites the proverb that "an enemy is just someone who's story we haven't heard." To an extent I agree with this statement. If we knew the way that the reasoning of position is constructed, we gain valuable insight into the way that we can merge horizons, and convince someone of something. Despite our limited amount of empathetic neurons, we should still try to understand the reasoning of others. The Savior is the utmost example of surpassing these boundaries and becoming truly understanding. Prayer is our attempt to appeal to him, and through rhetoric gain forgiveness. Becoming more like Jesus, should be one of our highest goal. Nephi reflects this, he was quick to forgive, and sometimes insightful to motives. Empathy is a strong tool that we should use in communication.
In conclusion, rhetoric should be decided based upon comparative reflection in empathy. Things are usually going very well for us if we simply examine our perspective and in discussion, verbally juxtapose it with some of the paradoxically hindering actions of self interest the world engages in. God's law is the highest, as well as the one that we should give the highest regard and value to.
Austin Hammer Sec 113
I like many of the things you have pointed out, especially how rhetoric and persuasion is a by product of self interest. We only try to persuade others when we truly believe in what we are telling them. Missionaries might go out for the wrong reasons but usually come back with a genuine love of the gospel. With that love comes a desire to share their joy with others. While it is service to God, it also brings joy to the teacher.
ReplyDeleteYou need to go through and cut the dead weight out of all of your sentences. Nearly all of them are too long, and if not a run on, then awkwardly inverted to make them technically correct. My advice would be to go through and get rid of nearly every dependent clause. Starting with "as we read" weakens your intro. Also, obviously you're going to analyze for the entire essay, it's only five paragraphs, so you don't need to say "throughout this essay". Work on transitions to clearly link each argument to the next. You talk about pursuing pleasure and understanding, but there is no real link between the two other than you read about them in W&R. Most of your arguments are valid, but they do not fit into a cohesive whole.
ReplyDeleteYou use a lot of big words. I can understand them fine, but your paper will be more effective if you use them sparingly. A lot of the time they bog down the rest of the sentence, like with "The Savior is the utmost example. . ." Check your sentences, a lot of them are too long, annoyingly inverted, passive voice, or something else. "If we knew the way that the reasoning of position is constructed, we gain valuable..." This is wordy and knew should be know. Do not use contractions and casual speech! This paper is very formal, but then you throw it off by using "it's just a matter..." Other nitpicks: ensue is misused. Make paragraphs (that may be a blog format thing though)
Also, I don't agree that repentance is merely using rhetoric to appeal to God. If it was there would be no need for a contrite spirit and a broken heart.
Sorry if this seemed harsh, but I figured since you seemed to be pretty critical of everyone else, you'd be fine with it! I did really like the hedonism insights!
HAHAHA I don't care about structure and readability, it's a blog not a paper, content should be the focus as well as corrections of true grammatical problems, not your particular difficulty in understanding or interpreting it. That being said
ReplyDelete1. the "deadweight" is intended for emphasis and adding meaning or expression
2. As we read works because the way that the entry was written was intended for an audience that would understand
3. "throughout this essay" helps as a way of describing what will be going on objectively, instead of people just assuming that is what is going to happen in the following paragraph.
4. if you don't understand the content, contact me. the link is quite apparent and the description suffices.
5. you fail to take a systemic view because of the inherent bias of intent to critique revealed at the end of your comment, take a new framework and evaluate it.
6. I use advanced language very sparingly, plus meaning can often be inferred from context.
7. Most of this paragraph, continues as a redundant and unnecessary explication of the first part of the paragraph.
8. the word ensue is not misused. I even checked to make sure on the web, before I put it in.
9. the two actions you describe are merely epiphenomena of understanding the rhetoric and expressing it correctly.
10. haha not harsh at all! reciprocity is good stuff.
11. your acceptance of the hedonism insight proves, that the content wasn't insanely difficult to follow. and cross apply it to the critique answered in number for, obviously that point isn't completely warranted.
Sorry but I fully agree with Erika! This is nothing personal. You had a lot of interesting points, but they were really scattered and hard to follow. Your thoughts just jumped from one thing to another without a full explanation. This may just be a blog, but it's a reflection of what our papers will be like in the final grading process. Be careful with grammar and punctuation, and try to make things flow. You really do have some great ideas, but they need to pieced together in a more effective manner. Great job though! Keep up the hard work.
ReplyDeleteHaley Wright- The transitions are apparent, perhaps a new frame for evaluation would be helpful, from both my perspective and yours. However, changing writing styles is very difficult and I can make no guarantees. I'm not particularly systemic in my essay, but connect the dots, or critique assumptions that don't make sense. Criticize in detail where things aren't connecting.
ReplyDeleteYou have a LOT of great insight in this essay, but I must admit pieces were hard to follow. I had to read through it twice (but that was probably beneficial). Overall, you did a great job. It made me wonder more about prayer as a form of rhetoric and how our prayers are heard. I recognized the fact that pathos is already appealed to before prayer due to the atonement and Christ's suffering for us. I also wonder how my own prayers can be more rhetorically effective...or if a contrite heart is enough. Parts of your writing seem to be more complex than needed: "if we simply examine our perspective and in discussion, verbally juxtapose it with some of the paradoxically hindering actions of self interest the world engages in." This seemed excessive. Though I understood it, it could be simplified (unless the complexity is part of your method somehow).
ReplyDeleteGood job! I would work on taking out first person pronouns (i.e. me, we, I) towards the end; it would make the paper even stronger. Even though it is a blog, it would be helpful to me as a reader if your paragraphs were clearly separated. This way the audience can focus more on the ideas in the paper than the formatting.
ReplyDeleteWow, careful everyone! Erika and Haley weren't trying to attack you, they were simply trying to help you with your writing. And remember--on the blog, you are writing for an audience, and the audience is that of your classmates. If your classmates are consistently finding it wordy or obscure, then that may be something you want to look at in the future. You say "the link is apparent" in regards to the content, but sometimes there's little things you can do to pay attention to your reader's needs.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, nitpicking particular words and phrases is probably less useful at this point, especially as this a blog post, as Austin points out.
I thought you wrote an interesting analysis with good insights, and I enjoyed how you brought in C.S. Lewis.