Major Assignments

Upcoming Events

  • No events in this category
  • responses to “Major Assignments

      • Despite the many variants of the definition of democracy, I believe one thing that can be agreed upon is that democratic ideals allow for free speech without collusion or persecution. The journalistic institutions we collectively select have long enjoyed, if nothing else, the freedom to report on topics that expose the actions of powerful politicians (one could say that this is the very lifeblood of such institutions).German public news agencies also enjoyed this freedom– that is, until the late 1930s when the infamous Fuhrer Aldof Hitler rose to power, wielding a broadsword of totalitarianism that effectively sliced free speech in half. Without the ability to spread ideas contradicting the Third Reich’s actions, opposing political parties were quickly squashed under the Nazi boot. If we fast forward to 2016, the election of Donald J Trump, we observe some bone-chilling correlations in Trump’s political strategy. He aims to sow doubt in the press. He aims to sow doubt in the vehicles of American democracy. Flawed as they might be, they are the crutch upon which our freedom stands. The catch phrase “fake news” closely resembles Hitler’s tactic of spreading propaganda through simple two-to-three word phrases in order to deauthenticate his opponents. Although he is no longer in office, the damage he ensued and agitprop he spread continues to threaten our democracy just as it threatened German liberty nearly a century ago.

      • Though Leopre doesn’t state it outright, she implies that there are very close parallels between threats to democracy in the present day and in the early twentieth century, particularly with regard to white supremacy. Adolf Hitler’s anti-jewish rhetoric in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s is remarkably similar to that of former president Donald Trump’s comments about Latino people, African American people, Asian people, Muslims, and Jews. Adolf Hitler wanted to drive out “inferior” races from newly conquered lands and eliminate the Jewish race entirely. Donald Trump has been much less open about his intentions but has made many hateful comments and enacted xenophobic legislation. Under his administration, right-winged organizations like the Proud Boys have been more vocal, race relations in the country have suffered, and hate crimes were at an all-time high. The parallels between the two show how under a single leader, a country can turn on itself and can become a threat to either the rest of the world or its own people.

      • Lepore acknowledges a prevalent parallel between the threat of democracy today and that of the 1920’s and ’30s. It is as though, essentially a century later, democracy still needs to prove to the world that it is a just regime. The democratic system today is being challenged by radical and fascist dictatorships or individuals like Kim Jun Un of communist North Korea. Just as in the early twentieth century, with the infamous fascists Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, the definition of democracy has been distorted to justify the authority of these radical individuals. Their agendas were made possible via propaganda and the manipulation of many peoples. This challenging and resulting debate arises as a result of everyone having an opinion; this is extensively demonstrated by Lepore’s account of the many public forums in Des Moines, Iowa and eventual involvement of “43 states” (Lepore) and 2.5 million Americans (Lepore). Today, exasperated by the heavy influence and presence of the media, many more are involved in the debate despite it not being handled the same way previously. With the fluidity and constant change in interpretation of democracy, democracy will always be up for debate; and the “paradox” (Lepore) that is the debate over democracy will remain unsolved, just satisfied until a strong enough opposition comes along and challenges democracy once more.

      • I feel that if you want to compare threats to democracy in the 20s and 30s today you have to look directly at Donald Trump. With that said, I always come back to the election when I think of threats to democracy. The example of Adolf Hitler’s rule is an easy example of an authoritative regime- Hitler ruled with an authoritative regime- he took control and kept it under the threat of violence and only left because he had no choice. President Trump on the other hand took his rule peacefully and one of the things that pushed Trump into the category of authoritative leader is through Trumps threats to voter security. When Trump claimed that he wanted to have the votes from certain states that voted against him thrown out, he directly attacked democracy in an authoritative way. While Hitler had the German society under his thumb via violence, Trump had to fight for his control and he did that by trying to remove certain American votes. Once the power to vote is taken away, a society can not freely speak its mind, and the power of a democracy gets taken away.

      • I think that there is a similar threat to worldwide democracies today as there was in the 1920’s and 30’s. Lepore states that after World War I, many new democracies were created and the “spread of liberal-democratic governments began to appear inevitable.” But then in the years leading up to the Second World War, these nations quickly fell to authoritarian governments such as facism and communism. This is strikingly similar to the world at the end of the Cold War. A number of democracies were created in former Soviet states, but Lepore states that the “infant mortality rate for democracies was high” and some of these states again fell to authoritarian governments. More currently, nations such as the United States are seeing fascist ideologies take root in their populations. These two instances (post World War I and post Cold War) demonstrate a major event that dramatically affected the international system.

      • Although Lepore does not outrightly compare the questioning of democracy in the 1920s/1930s to today, there are obvious similarities. As pointed out in the article both the 1920s/1930s and today have had what is viewed as an “extreme” ruler- Adolf Hilter and Donald Trump, and both have expressed supporting some aspect of white supremacy within their ruling. Personally, I can see the similarities of both time periods, especially after reading Lepores article. At first, Hilter is who screamed more extreme in his mindset- leading the massmurder of millions of people based off his personal mindset; however, after consideration Trump did the same. During his presidency, the BLM movement became prevalent and he let thousands of people become injured at protests from the police he financially supported and armed with weapons. In both cases, innocent people were harmed from an leader who did not represent full democracy.

      • In the article “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died” by Jill Lepore, the continuation of the battle between morality of words and intention of actions from the early 20th century to the present is made vividly clear. The particular quote from Jimmy Stewart to the American Congress in 1939, could just as easily be spoken at the Capitol today. Stewart pleads that “its not too late”, declaring that “great principles don’t get lost once they come to light”. These words are spoken on the brink of the Second World War, after the Treaty of Versailles and Woodrow Wilson’s 10 Points directly emphasize the “great principles” of democracy. The fact that democracy has been outlined does not mean it survives in practice, that is evident as much today as it was in 1939. After a turbulent last presidency, a global pandemic, and battles for equality on all bases rage on without a clear ending point, the question of whether great principles can stand on their own is raised just like it was in the early 20th century.

      • Lepore states, “It’s a paradox of democracy that the best way to defend it is to attack it, to ask more of it, by way of criticism, protest, and dissent”. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarenteens the right to peacefully assemble and petition the Government. It is a fundamental piece of our society that democracy works when everyone’s voice is allowed to be heard. With tactics in place to increase the difficultly to vote and more and more fearmongering to discourage voters it is important to continue trying to stay seen. It is important that, with the spread of false facts, we learn to think for ourselves and question what lawmakers are doing. It is written in our Declaration of Independence that the government is to “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”. In order for democracy to achieve the heights it can, it is necessary to not take the government’s words as the final say. We have to remember that they work for us.

      • Civic debate is a true reflection of what makes America what it is. Without our absolute freedom to express our First Amendment rights and freedom of speech, our democracy would crumble. For the people, by the people is the foundation of our establishment; the 1930’s debates were a pure form of democracy in action.

        In today’s tense political climate, I believe conversation is exactly what is needed. Sympathetic and civil communication has the power to unify and propel entire nations and their histories. I find that today many of our youth are divided. We believe that the opposite side is always completely wrong and painted as the enemy. However, it is to my understanding and practice that as long as people set aside their differences and sit down to just have a simple conversation, they will find they have so much in common and will agree on most fundamental things. This political polarization has left American youth at each other‘s necks instead of unified under a common goal of prosperity and success as American citizens. With more attention to the possibility of humanizing opposite opinions and logic through using the power of debate and communication, as used in the 30’s, there becomes an immense capacity to solve any and all of our problems.

      • Lepore states that during the early 20th century, “Americans didn’t find another word” for democracy, yet to this day, this is still applicable. The time from 2016 to the 2020 presidential election up until President Joe Biden’s election are examples that Americans have no unanimous definition of what democracy means. While Donald Trump and his supporters berating left-winged media and news outlets and called many of those against Trump communists, preached voter fraud, and Trump particularly stating he will fight for another term in office no matter the cost, anti-Trump individuals admonished Trump and his supporters for their lack of recognizing fault in his leadership, and their apathy and failure of supporting basic human rights. In another degree, during the 30’s, there were divides between defenders of the current political climate and those who questioned it, or, as Lepore put it, those who “went out and stopped the rain.” What the public shared in the ’20s and ’30s and what they share today is that in both time periods the catalyst of these divides was because of democracy. However, the common factor that divided the public during the past and divides them in the present is that both parties of people were fighting for a democracy that nobody shared a definitive definition for. This pattern occurring nearly centuries apart says a lot about the volatility of democracy, and therefore the search for a unanimous democracy may truly never reach an end, but will only become more complex, taking shape in many forms over the years to come.

      • White supremacy, nationalism, and capitalistic corruption have in the past lead to cracks in democracy. These issues create loopholes in a democracy that today has still have not been effectively abolished. During FDR’s first inauguration the biggest fear facing Americans as Lepore notes was the growing mistrust in democracy. Today is no different. The country is divided over a polarizing election. The Republican Party claimed widespread voter fraud and ran campaigns on fear of the other. The basic integrity of our institutions is constantly being questioned. Although there has been a clear change since the 1920s-30s the same threats to our democracy are still around and only continue to grow stronger as faith in our systems gets weaker.

      • History repeats itself, and nothing is more evident in this then the parallels between the plight of American democracy in the 1930 to today. Within Jill Lepore’s New Yorker article, “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died” Lepore discusses the near death of democracy during the chaotic time period of the 1930s where fascist and communist paranoia ran rampant throughout America. However, when Lepore was setting the context of America within her article, she makes several statements that also ring true to contemporary society today. When FDR delivered his speech, he gave it during a time of great doubt evident in “Americans’ own declining faith in self-government.” (Lepore). This mentality can also be felt in today’s society as the people’s faith in the government slowly begins to dwindle. Acts of violence and hatred left unpunished, the hateful rhetoric of our previous president, as well as the failure of the government to handle disasters such as coronavirus and natural disasters has left American citizens doubtful of our government. Americans no longer believe in the process of justice and law and have begun taking action into their own hands. Public movements such as Black Lives Matter, MeToo, LGBT rights, and etc. are all examples of how the public no longer believes that change will occur in the government but rather they must make change happen through their own hands.

      • The threats facing democracy today are absolutely nothing compared to those facing democracy during the 1920s and 1930s, and to suggest otherwise is laughable. One of our geopolitical rivals, Russia, is messing with our elections; a president had some separation anxiety from the office; there is a rise in reactionary thought the world over. However, none of these compare to the thought of having multiple industrialized fascist powers in Europe, all tearing through military limitations like paper. Today, American democracy has withered a bit. Americans need to talk about what’s ailing it, and figure out how to fix that, but it’s a statistically negligible chance that that includes sending American boys to their deaths in an actual war to defend democracy. It’s childish and melodramatic to compare the threats facing democracy today to those from the 1920s and 1930s.

      • Jill Lepore, a history professor at Harvard and staff writer at The New Yorker wrote an article about a year ago named: “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died” in which she parallels today’s crisis on the decaying of American Democracy to the worldwide perishing of Democracy of the 1930s. In her article Lepore argues that the decade of the 30s experienced a set of events like the great depression, the recovery from WWI and the uprising of fascist states that started taking over certain territories that led to a fluctuation from Democracy to Communism and Fascism, even in Democratic America. Lepore explains in her article how F.D.R. together with the influential people at the time introduced his new policy of a”New Deal” for all Americans and how this national program played a major role in rescuing American Democracy at the time. Part of this program was to institute a national forum for where people from all across the country could connect through a radio network that enabled them to really criticize and question Democracy from multiple perspectives and eventually leading to a more unified country with a stronger sense of what democracy meant for everyone.

        I personally believe this method to be very effective and I am sure if we work together we could all benefit from something like this. In today’s modern society social media makes it so much easier than using the radio to create a collective mission of fixing our current problem of a mediocre democracy. The government or the people itself as group can organize forums like the ones used in the 30s through national television or even through social media platform tools, such as facebook or instgram lives and twitter polls. If we get people from different contexts with diverse perspectives to address a certain topic in a mannered way we can appropriately educate the population and clear the air on what democracy means in our current situation. I believe that a major thing for this to work is representation, to make sure every group, every idea, every perspective is included so that together we can build a more appealing democracy for everyone. What I pictured was a televised and moderated forum where 10 experts of different fields speak on a specific prompt that is relevant to our present day, with a 10 min news update on the topic before the debate guided to the audience at home. And after the debate is done the spectators at home could answer a set of questions and polls on the topic thorugh their phone and also open a digital forum where they can also share their opinions on the topic and on the debate( for this this to work we would have to adjust certain restrictions so that everyone’s opinion is heard and respected) like a ban on aggressors or the prohibition on the usage of certain slang terms, etc.

      • The debates that occurred in the debates in Des Moines, Iowa, were groundbreaking for that time, and for good reason. They allowed anyone, from anywhere, to argue anything freely in front of their peers. Furthermore, once the debates became popular on a national scale, people all over the country were able to hear discussions about controversial topics- and, most importantly, they heard from normal citizens; people like them. In today’s society, being able to hear from people in similar situations debate topics- not just present them- would largely help people understand the important issues. If radio stations were to broadcast both sides of a debate, no matter which way they lean politically, average citizens would be able to listen to all points of view, and therefore form their own opinion more wisely and inevitably become more informed about the world around them.

      • In a contemporary New Yorker article, “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died”, Jill Lepore writes about the importance of questioning democracy and how it is the only feasible way to save the diminishing American democracy. She signals the significant effects of the 1930s debates that spread all across the states from Des Moines, Iowa. At these forums, citizens were able to freely express their thoughts on the American system of government, actively making an effort to advance the standard of living. Although we are currently in 2021, and these forums took place nearly a century ago, there is no better time than now to implement another form of public debate into our daily lives to strengthen our withering democracy. Lepore makes clear that public debate is highly impactful at strengthening democracy, so we should make these forums the new norm. To start off, communities can form small groups where they discuss politics and major issues throughout the country and how the government should tackle them. Like a domino effect, this communal effort will spread throughout the states, allowing for more people to come out and discuss modern-day issues. Eventually, like the forums in Des Moines, more and more people will become aware of the importance of participating in these debates, as it is regarding the future of our country.

      • Implementing a 1930’s style debate forum would work best on social media where Americans can potentially hear opinions from other Americans across the nation. As it stands, social media divides people more politically more than it connects. With just one tap of the “block” or “mute” button, people can silence the opposing sides opinion out for good, but if social media platforms reworked themselves with connecting people in mind a new level of communication could be achieved. I stress nation-wide social media events over local level communication because often times people in specific areas share the same believes so there would be a lot of echo rather than actual discourse in debates. Creating a new-found interest in democracy where people have to hear each other out rather than blocking is an effective way to revitalize our nation’s democratic efforts.

      • In “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died” article published by The New Yorker, author Jill Lepore recalls the groundbreaking 1933 political forum that exemplified the pinnacle of American democracy: debate. While John W. Studebaker’s advocacy for the freedom of expression manifested in representative political conversations still reigns historically impactful, the possibility for such respectful and effectual debates on a widescale level remains uncertain in the modern day. Though the rise of social media does connect citizens across the country in ongoing political discussions, the potential to establish forums are repeatedly overlooked. Social media platforms such as Tiktok and Facebook only further polarize divided political parties as algorithms curate more radical, narrow content for each individual. The key difference between our current day society and that of the 1930’s is the gradual disintegration of the moderate sector. Politicians and journalistic news sources alike have evaded the moderate sector entirely in attempts to appeal to the growing polarized parties. If we were to use social media to facilitate respectful and intellectual political debates, it is best done so on a smaller scale within our communities . Creating a conversation with the masses, though effective in shedding light to unaware and misinformed citizens, can be overwhelming and lead to further polarization. We’ve seen this within the past year with the rise of the Black Live’s Matter movement. However, certain liberal social media presences, such as Jubilee on YouTube, have established forums that often disarm aggressive citizens and create dialogue that allows for better understanding of the other side. The series “Middle Ground” takes six people on opposing sides and sits them down to find shared commonalities and engage in conversation on a controversial topic in a more humane way. Video’s that follow a similar “Middle Ground” format have allowed me to take part in my own conversations in the comment sections, where I can learn about the experiences of others that shape political divides. If we apply a similar tone of intent to listen and learn in our own community forums, I think our society might have a slim chance of eradicating these political divisions.

      • In general, discussion and debate allows for all (or at least multiple) sides of an argument to be brought to the table, which in turn allows for a better solution to come to light. However, in the present day, the likelihood of such happening is slim. Although we seem to be in a more interconnected world than ever (considering the internet and social media), it seems that politically and ideologically we are in actuality more divided. The media seems to be dominated by people who are either so far left or so far right that they are simply incapable of coming together for a genuine discussion, (by which I mean a discussion in which people from all sides make valid arguments based on valid facts and truly consider everyone else’s point of view). But, it seems that if the suppression of discussion and ideas continues, democracy and free thinking itself may fail. To prevent this, we must find a way to assuage people from either side to listen with complete openness, which is a most difficult task to be sure. Perhaps though, if there were to be such discussions amongst well-liked, well-respected individuals broadcasted very publicly, people would be more inclined to follow suit and be less quick to dismiss opposing sides.

      • In my opinion, civic debates of 1930 are exceptionally applicable today, through the extended activity observed in social media platforms such as Twitter. It is certain, that a huge part of present-day communication occurs online. With the advantage of anonymity, which the internet offers, even more people, than they were a century ago, decide to speak up, and want to be heard as they express their own opinion. In social networks people, feeling secure behind their own screen, discuss more freely about current political issues, or political ideologies in general, debate, and fight over them. In particular Twitter, was designed with the exact purpose of letting people exchange opinions based on “what is happening” in various fields, whether political, social, or even artistic.

      • While social media has unfortunately been used as kindling in the dumpster fire that is current political discourse, it does still possess the capability to be used for good. Platforms like Twitter and Instagram are able to unite and connect billions of people around the world instantaneously, all who are able to openly share their opinions. If we decided to reinstate the public forum model as a way to air political grievances and discuss solutions, social media would be the perfect way to do that. There is actually a politician who is already making use of this tool very regularly, and with very positive results. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does Instagram Lives a few times a month, in which she takes questions from viewers, incites lively debates, and has guests speak from their expertise as well. There are arguments and disagreements, but they are resolved in peaceful ways and all viewpoints are able to be heard and analyzed. If more politicians were to do this and their constituents were able to actively participate in and contribute to democratic discourse, democracy as we know it might not be holding on so tenuously to remain relevant and powerful.

      • Social media today will not hinder the 1930s solution. Lectures or other creations of rhetoric can be uploaded to many popular social medias such as youtube. By youtube, the video can instantly be seen by people all over the state. The internet is faster than any single method of 1930s. There’s no doubt that once people initiate civic debates now, the existence and assistance of social media will immediately heaten the discussion, causing unprecedented attention to this topic.

      • In her article, Lepore revisits a period of time when the United States faced an identity crisis. At the time, radios and public forums were the major forms of spreading news and communication for large audiences, and it is because of these tools that the people of the U.S. were able to come together. In today’s society, technological advances have amassed numerous platforms in which people can share their opinions with one another more efficiently. While the radio can broadcast news from one state to another, its frequency has limitations. Facebook, on the other hand, one of the most used social media platforms today, can connect individuals globally and has features that attract a wider audience. Not only are people able to convey the same messages that they would have in the 1930s, but with added visuals, they are able to strengthen their claims and bring more people together than before. Additionally, many public figures are able to connect on a more personal level with their fans. Especially in times of distress and chaos like right now, Facebook among other social media platforms have enabled a continuous voice to be heard on various global issues.

      • In 1930, lectures, newspapers, and radio broadcasts were the main distribution platforms for information regarding our democracy. Back then, these methods were extremely effective because they were used universally across America. When an event took place, such as a civic debate, every attendee was either seeing, reading, or listening in to the conversation. In today’s world, social media covers all of these platforms and condenses them into one, a cell phone. Instead of having information spread out in different forms, we now have a way to bring a diverse set of accounts into one place that is accessible to many. Instagram, for example, has an option to broadcast an event live. It’s also possible to post an IGTV video, a video longer than one minute, to spread information. Because of these advancements in technology, there is no longer a reason to rely on newspapers or the radio to recount impactful events. There are not as many people listening to the radio or reading the newspaper as in the 1930s, and there will surely be a lesser amount in the future as our world begins to rely more and more on digital devices.

      • In my opinion, sadly, the civic debates in the 1930s are probably not viable to do in the modern world by using social media. Social media today is very messy. A lot of things that happen on these applications such as Twitter are very mob-centric. For example, If someone disagrees with something or someone else, that person may get mobbed by a negative response immediately with no reasonable ability to refute. Also, most responses that are given on these social media platforms are very short, usually capped at a sentence or two. Twitter has the word cap and requires either multiple tweets or a separate application if someone does want to say something in a longer response. The civic debates in the 1030s were civil. There can be an argument and a refutation from both sides of a debate, they would be able to clearly spell out their arguments. Neither person would get mobbed by negative responses for no reason. Generally speaking, because it is basically impossible to get a civil environment on social media, it is probably not viable to go back to the 1930’s format.

      • Social media sites allow people to directly communicate with people from long distances, and may allow them to communicate directly with people in charge of the government. Former President Donald Trump frequently used social media, specifically Twitter, throughout his presidency to bring up controversial issues that he believes need to be discussed. People could comment on his posts and even communicate with people who share, or don’t share their same political views. I think a modern form of this 30’s system could be effective if used properly. Democracy demands controversy, and the easy access to people from different political views, including political leaders may allow democracy to run more effectively, and with greater acceptance.

      • There’s no doubt that social media has become the worldwide medium through which to spread, commend, and criticize political views. However, the nature of these interactions is distinctly one-dimensional. A typed Twitter post or Facebook update misses out on the combined power of verbal cues, facial expressions, and hand gestures characteristic of a pre-COVID face-to-face conversation, which is why Leopore’s depiction of 1930s civic debates could still be feasible. I am convinced that the success of “America’s Town Meeting of the Air” stemmed from every attendee’s ability to associate an opposing position with another human being who had different life experiences and, as a result, different beliefs. This understanding is a critical aspect of politics and conversation in general, often overlooked throughout online communication in the interest of winning the debate or trolling the other side. Moving the discussion back to lecture halls and public libraries might just be the breath of fresh air our nation needs to once again engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

      • The ways societies functioned and interacted a century ago starkly contrasts the ways in which we collaborate and communicate in the present day with thanks to the advancement of technology and the rise of social media. In the 1930 they used highly censored forms of networking like radios broadcasts and the post. However in todays world, while some sites may also have censorship, it is no where near the degree of the days of the 1930s. With social media the world is your oyster and the internet your playground- you have unlimited resources to share your ideas and get in touch with the globe. This can however have negative consequences, a great example of this is the concept of cancel culture. Such that when a group of people disagree with something you did they collectively cyber bully that person. Additionally with so many extreme contrasting options that are put on the internet regarding politics everyday on twitter, reddit and instagram that can cause political instability, I just don’t believe that the 1930 model could be successful in todays society.

      • The method applied in 1930s will not work in contemporary society for a few reasons. In 1930s, due to the undeveloped technology people had, it was quiet difficult for people to freely express their opinions to others, either supporters or opponents. There weren’t any other convenient ways like holding speeches in hall or on radio that enabled people to spread opinions in public. However, with the enhanced technology nowadays, people are no longer restricted in place where they locate. They are now able to openly communicate with others from all around the world, talking about anything they would like to. It won’t be necessary for politicians to hold speeches since they are able to spread their thoughts online through social media. Yet, there exists problems with social media: everything spreads rapidly online, including positive information and deceivable information. For example, Donal Trump often used his Twitter to express his personal attitudes toward international incidents. However, his opinions were being misleading most of the time.

      • A 1930s solution is not viable in today’s age of social networking. The creation of social media, specifically on a network such as Facebook, users are able to listen and watch from so many sources. Back in the 1930s, civic debates held in lecture halls and on the radio were mostly the only times when ordinary citizens were able to hear what opposing parties had to say. Now, with just a click of a button, users are able to access hundreds of news sources that give out their own different opinions without having the opposing party have a say. Facebook’s engine even has a way to somehow label their users to a certain political stance based on what articles and videos they click on; then they recommend similar articles and videos. Users are then only viewing what they want and not hear what the opposing party has to say. Because of this, interaction between people on Facebook with opposing views don’t even want to hear what the other has to say because they automatically think the other one is wrong.

      • The method for discussing democracy used in the 1930s seems to be the best way to discuss these topics–even today. By hosting a physical in-person event, people are able to interact with the debate. Only those who really are passionate about something will participate. Those on the radio can only listen, and not point out their opinion. In the case of social media, everyone has a voice. This is both good and bad, however, the negative aspects seem to outweigh the positive ones. Social media turns into heated arguments where people point fingers, threaten, and argue with one another. Meaningful debates are hard to find under the social media umbrella. By making these forums a tune-in only for most, it can be an opportunity to learn, listen, and agree or disagree–privately. This takes away to problems with social media. To make the debates work in a digital age, a live-stream of a live event would probably be the best option. Discouraging conversation is not the best option, but attacking is bad, and that seems to be the majority of social media conversations.

      • In Lepore’s account of the 1930s, civic debates were held in lecture halls and broadcasted over the radio. It helped “the people of the community of every political affiliation, creed, and economic view have an opportunity to participate freely.” This allowed democracy to continue in a time where Fascism and Communism were overbearing on American society. In today’s era, there are many, because of the incredibly large-scale use of social media today, that would not even bother attending such a thing as a civic debate. Interactions on Facebook and Twitter often target political audiences or are politicians issuing political attacks. There is no enlightened sense of discussing topics freely in a formal manner when there are many who would denounce your opinion. A good example of this is Cancel Culture, where people are publicly shamed for their opinions. We as a society have come to a point where many people believe so strongly that there is only one side to things that they refute the majority of the others. The idea of professional discussions that can occur over debates, especially over political issues, seems to be more chaotic than productive, looking at the recent presidential debates.

      • I would say that a 1930s solution is, unfortunately, no longer a viable solution in the current era of social media and networking. The sphere of influence during the 1930s was extremely limited, especially compared to the world we live in today where we are surrounded by opinions, influence, and disinformation. For example, civic debates are no longer what they say on the tin, they are rather a tool for viral clips to ensue, when one party ‘roasts’ the other, resulting in a ‘victory’ for the Left or Right. As a result, ferocious insults are thrown back and forth in a Twitter argument, which takes us back further from the point at which we started. This is seen no clearer than in Presidential debates, where Donald Trump decided to take the opportunity to make jokes and attack the other side rather than take part in an effective democratic debate. This was evident in the debates for the 2020 election, where Trump said “You (Biden) graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class, don’t use the word smart with me”. The toxicity in a debate between people on the Left and Right means the very essence of democracy in the 1930s, to speak about it, is no longer possible as people are too proud to defend their views, instead of allowing public discourse to effectively occur. We can clearly see that the 1930s solution is no longer a viable option, indeed we may now be reaching the end of our known democracy with the world arguably more divided than ever before.

      • In the article “The Last Time Democracy Almost Died” by Jill Lepore, the author describes how different platforms were in the 1930s. If a political event, civic debate, or otherwise was held in a lecture hall, those in the audience were forced to listen and only the extremely interested participated. The other source was radio, in which people could obviously only listen. Unfortunately, I think society is past the point of returning to the 1930s solution. The age of social media is both toxic and valuable. Everybody’s voices can be heard which allows for positive voices to be heard that wouldn’t have been before, but that also means it is extremely easy for false information to be spread which is incredibly dangerous. Especially in the last four years, there seems to be a gap created so large that people believe there to be only two sides. Civil conversations about politics are rare, and violence as a result is unfortunately not. It seems that we are at a turning point when it comes to democracy, as we face a more divided world than we have ever encountered.

      • We live in probably the most technologically advanced society to date, however that comes with its consequences. There are both advantages and disadvantages when using social media as a means to talk about politics. Politics is, and always has been, a touchy subject because it has a direct impact on people’s lives. The advantage and disadvantage of social media and politics are how fast information spreads. During the BLM protests over the summer, thousands of protestors shared their experiences at protests. As a result, these protestors got millions of views from people both in and out of the United States. The drawback of social media however, is the spread of misinformation. It is easy to share information without looking at the specific study/ statistic, especially if it favors your point of view. With the right people, the 1930s option is a good way to talk about politics. However, a lot of people tend to use social media as an escape from reality, so if social media becomes increasingly political, then the 1930s approach would be pointless.

      • Anything put on the internet can be reached by millions of people worldwide in seconds. The technological advancement of social networking makes the 1930’s solution to democracy irrelevant. The 1930s did not have famous apps in the likes of Instagram and Twitter where people would openly communicate with each other about any topic. The effortlessness in communicating with someone can sometimes lead to a heated argument and can completely change the original topic they were debating on. Twitter is a popular example because of the fact that it is one of the only social media apps that is just writing. Many of those users when arguing can start mixing their emotions with logic and their emotional feeling towards the subject can influence their response, which I believe cannot be a validated.

      • During the time of the 1920s to 1930s, in-person lectures and broadcast radio are the two most popular ways to discuss and debate about democracy. Today, social media enable people to interact in a much faster way. However, this also leads to some problems. People on the internet are always defensive and aggressive. If you express a different opinion, you are likely to be blamed for your different opinion. Cyber-bullying is much more common than real-world bullying because people are less likely to be caught on the internet. We always feel like what people say on the internet is the majority opinion. However, only a minority of people constantly expressing their ideas online.

      • I believe a 1930s solution is no longer viable in the current society. Because of the technological advancement in our society, there are more social media platforms where we can share our insights freely on the internet than we are in the 1930s. Or are we actually more free to speak up on Facebook or Twitter? It’s more likely that the conversation will deviate from the true topic and turn into a dispute without a conclusion when people try to discuss or debate a specific political view on Facebook or Twitter nowadays. While people are supposed to take the opportunity to share their insights on a political view peacefully, they quarrel or even threaten others who disagree with their opinions. Therefore, rather than directly addressing the issues related to politics, people on social media tend to mix their political views with their emotional feelings. Thus, attacking happens on social media actually increases the difficulty to discuss political views.

      • Danger, danger! Jill Lepore reveals how during the 1930s, when democracy was being questioned, civic debates helped save democracy. The civic debates held in lecture halls and broadcasted over the radio created unity and discussion between people with different viewpoints. Given current times with the uprising of social networking, it shifts the outlet of people exchanging information. While there may still be in person debates, discussions have shifted towards social media platforms. Social networking may be considered a positive thing as it makes it easy to share your opinions with more people. However, with social media, a problem lies with the spread of information. For example, take Facebook and its algorithm. It feeds people with content that is programmed for the user to continue strolling and use their site. As a result, in terms of democracy, it limits people from seeing different points of view as the algorithm provides posts that the user is interested in and agrees with. It creates an information cocoon where one only sees the same type of information, making them think that everyone agrees on the same points. In reality, due to advancements in technology, social networking is actually hindering our ability to communicate and have proper civic debates as we once did in the 1930s.

      • I believe the 1930s solution to save democracy would not be able to stay relevant in today’s era of social networking. Unlike in the 1930s, people today have a variety of different ways they can communicate with one another, especially through popular social networking apps where information can spread like a wildfire. Facebook and Twitter allow users to have discussions with a variety of people from all around the world, simply at their fingertips. Even though today’s access to widespread communication is easy, it can also lead to quick and careless responses due to its comfortability. This could create space for unproductive conversations because users face little to no consequences for their actions behind screens. It’s also commonly understood that Facebook and Twitter conversations can get out of control where the main topic shifts into something different, and can often expand into altercations among users.

      • In the 1930s, the lesson that Americans began to grasp during their public forums about democracy was that everyone must communicate and debate in the most honest way possible, and I think that social networking nowadays allows this to continue but on a much larger scale, involving millions rather than hundreds or thousands at once. In almost all social media applications, debates ensue in the comment section. This is structured just like the civic debates of the 1930s, everyone conversing about the post or issue they are commenting on, but there’s an inherent problem that’s in every argument: Are people listening to one another or are they just waiting to speak? This question fits better for an in-person situation, but the same goes for comments: Are you just replying to the post, giving your insight then scrolling past, or are you reading what others have written to enrich or challenge your own perspective? Ultimately, the outcome is based on the individual in both cases, however, the methods are similar enough that social networking is the grander, technologized version of public forums.

      • I believe that civic debates held in lecture halls and broadcast over the radio in 1930 are no longer viable in our society at the moment. Jill Lepore argues that this way of communicating helped people that had different viewpoints to unify and share their ideas and beliefs. However, due to technological development and social media, there aren’t reasons for people to have in-person debates and broadcast over the radio. Social networking allows people to share their beliefs with different kinds of people that are across the world. Unlike in-person debates, you can simply communicate with people across the world through social media such as Facebook and Twitter without actually physically being with them. Besides,I believe that people tend to participate more when they are on social networking compared to in-person debates and broadcast over the radio because people can simply share their views behind their cell phones. Without the need to face the person face to face, social networking gives people security and some sort of protection to “hide” behind their phones. However, there are negative effects of social networking as well. Because people can communicate behind their phones, they can be lazy and type things without thinking deeply, which leads to inaccurate information and ideas. Lastly, social networking can make people argue and create a mess. People tend to persuade others to be on their side instead of sharing their political views, which destroys the purpose of democracy.

      • With the new advancements of technology, the era of social networking is much more efficient with the shift from in person to online debates. However, there are many downsides as well. In today’s society, it’s very accessible through social media like Twitter and Facebook to engage in political conversation. Twitter, for example, enables for hundreds and hundreds of discussion posts for numerous different topics such as politics, music, art, and more. Thousands of people worldwide can instantly connect and speak up about their issues, their concerns, and their opinion through a few simple clicks. Yet because current day news across the globe can be accessed and learnt, controversial statements can be made under an anonymous name. Thus, this can result in the possibility of spreading misinformation and the allowance of many ineffective fights. Instead of a civilized political debate, there can be many aggressive opinionated people who take charge of the conversation and lead it to inadequate discussions. The internet is definitely a helpful method for civic debates, but it can be unreliable.

      • Although lessons can be taken from 1930s civic debates, it may be challenging to completely integrate live debates into today’s current society. With technology becoming such an integral part of modern society, it is difficult to imagine people all across the country forming groups to meet up with one another in person. The culture since the 1930s has drastically shifted towards a more physically distanced society as people rely more and more on technology to communicate with each other. Twitter has become a major source of political attention in the last few years, as former President Trump utilized this platform quite often to send out messages to the nation about his opinions and goals, shifting the role of social media to be even more essential for politics. This use of Twitter has caused conversations around politics to become much more casual, as people are far more comfortable with giving their opinions behind a screen rather than face to face in fear of being ridiculed. For these reasons, the 1930s civic debates would not be smoothly integrated into our modern society. Despite this, there are still many lessons that can be derived from these debates. It is in fact possible to blend these debates with current technology, using applications such as Zoom to debate with people from across the nation. Especially during the pandemic, using technology to communicate with others over a video chat would be much more effective than arguing over an application such as Twitter, where people are hidden behind their screens, just utilizing text. Video technology would allow people to form groups with each other even if they do not live near one another, bringing together people from various backgrounds to have productive conversations. In essence, the civic debates from the 1930s are not a solid solution for modern-day political meetings as it would be a dramatic shift to begin meeting in person, but the techniques of debating with your fellow citizens can be assimilated into our culture through video chatting platforms.

      • I don’t think that Lepore’s described idea of debates around democracy, like those of Des Moines in the 1930s, would work today in the public forum of social media. The biggest reason for this is the lack of a moderator, necessary for genuine discussion and debate in my view. Misinformation, a problem present in the 1920s and 30s, has become much more rampant with the advent of the internet and targeted advertisement. Most orators would find it hard to refute and combat each and every single piece of misinformation as well as make a convincing argument for their case. The action of berating your opponent with false and misleading facts will inevitably lead to some of them sticking. In most debates, a moderator would intervene to clear up misinformation, however this isn’t applicable for the internet. Many social media companies, in response to this, have tried to act as moderators; however, this, too, presents a troubling idea of big media companies, with their own interests and biases, growing too powerful and becoming, in essence, the arbiters of truth. In addition, the very nature of media platforms being based around likes and shares leads to sensationalist statements and arguments not informative discussion. A debate via social media is akin to a debate via newspaper headlines. Well-thought answers are ignored in favor of quick one-liners and entertaining attacks that garner traction. Perhaps Lepore’s civic debate could return and unify people today, but Twitter and Facebook will never be the place for it.

      • In my opinion, the solution which would have been pertinent in the 1930s would render obsolete today. On some social media platforms, it may be possible to conduct a somewhat productive civic debate. However, I believe that in today’s day and age social media has corrupted us and led to a steady decline in our abilities as humans to have meaningful debates. My justification for this claim is that social media such as Twitter has created a community where news spreads like wildfire and rather than opening doors to debate and conversation it has lead to a hostile environment for ideas to grow. On Twitter, the comfort of anonymity has allowed users to say or do anything with no consequences, allowing a toxic environment of bashing others. In a true civic debate, individuals are willing to listen to the opposing side and understand while also expanding upon their own opinion. Today this would create a Twitter battle that would be fought by many creating a divide, rather than a common understanding.

      • Since social media has become more prevalent in the 21rst Century, movements like the #MeToo and BLM have used social media in order to both organize and carry out their message. While the world is different now than it was back in the 1920s and ’30s, both in terms of technology and social standards, tactics from that time can still be used and be effective. While they may not be intended for our current day society, people can make them adapt to new technology like social media. Social media provides a platform for people to be able to share their ideals and opinions but also gives them a choice to be anonymous. Anonymity is both a dangerous thing but can also be beneficial. It allows for more people to speak out and feel comfortable doing so but that is not always a good thing. While social media can help people connect and organize and speak out against cruelty, it also allows for bad people to do the same. Social media also can lead to misinformation in this process. So while applying these solutions, one has to take caution because while Twitter and Facebook allow for people to make positive changes in the world, it also allows for people to create more chaos.

      • After observing countless times how almost every online debate on political issues turns out in the end and even participating in the debates myself, I can almost guarantee that the 1930s solution of civic debates is a lot harder to achieve in today’s social networking environment. Having the ability to argue with others virtually can be used to people’s advantage so they can make exaggerated claims that they would be too afraid to make in real life. So most arguments online often go downhill within a span of few back-and-forth replies. Whenever two opposite ideology clashes, the discussions can turn to a battle of dehumanizing and assaulting their opponent’s identity since the nature of internet platforms makes them unable to see each other’s faces. Eventually, the arguments become the contrary of the 1930s solution — uncivilized quarrel of irrationality and violence.

      • SOCRATES. Then answer, Gorgias, since you share my opinion.
        GORGIAS. The kind of persuasion employed in the law courts and other gatherings, Socrates, as I said just now, and concerned with right and wrong.
        SOCRATES. I suspected ‘too, Gorgias, that you meant this kind of persuasion, with such a province: it is merely that you may not be surprised if a little later I ask you the same kind of question, though the answer seems clear to me: yet I may repeat it-for, as I said, I am questioning you, not for your own sake, but in order that the argument may be carried forward· consecutively, and that we may not form the habit of suspecting and anticipating each other’s views, but that you may complete your own statements as you please, in accordance with your initial plan.
        GORGIAS. I think your method is right, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’? GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’? GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.

        Socrates continued to ask Gorgias to clarify himself and answer questions. By letting Gorgias speak, Socrates tried to help Gorgias to discover what Socrates thought was true. Socrates tried hard to navigate his interlocutor to reach the conclusion by himself, rather than being told. As Abram said, “By asking the speaker to explain himself or to repeat his statement in different terms, Socrates forced his interlocutors to separate themselves, for the first time, from their own words-to separate themselves, that is, from the phrases and formulas that had become habitual through the constant repetition of traditional teaching stories.” In this passage, Socrates keeps asking questions to let Gorgias finally identify the essential difference between knowledge and belief, thus letting Gorgias to admit that knowledge and belief is not the same. This method is highly persuasive and eloquent because the opposite man reached the conclusion by himself.

      • Socrates: And now let us have your reply, Gorgias. Rhetoric is one of the arts that achieve and fulfill their function entirely through words, is it not?
        Gorgias: That is so.
        Socrates: Tell me then in what field. What is the subject matter of the words employed by rhetoric?
        Gorgias: The greatest and noblest of human affairs.
        Socrates: But, Gorgias, what you are now saying is disputable and not yet clear. I think you must have heard men singing at drinking parties the familiar song in which they enumerate our blessings, health being the first, beauty the second, and third, as the composer of the song claims, wealth obtained without dishonesty.
        Gorgias: I have heard it. But what is the point of your remark?

        Throughout the exchange, Socrates continues to dig at Gorgias by asking him question after question after question about what Gorgias believed what the nature of rhetoric was. By asking questions to clarify what Gorgias truly believes and Gorgias continuing to explain his stance, Socrates was able to force Gorgias to separate himself from what he was saying. Socrates was continuously challenging Gorgias by asking him all these different questions regarding what Gorgias truly believed. When asked so many questions and having to explain himself over and over, Gorgias was separated from his argument and forced to come out with his explanations..

      • Socrates: Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science?
        Gorgias: Words.
        Socrates: Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E treatment will restore their health?
        Gorgias: No.
        Socrates: Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        Gorgias: Certainly not.
        Socrates: Yet it makes men able to speak.
        Gorgias: Yes.
        Socrates: And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        Gorgias: Of course.
        Socrates: Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450A mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        Gorgias: Assuredly.
        Socrates: Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        Gorgias: Yes.
        Socrates: Words about diseases?
        Gorgias: Certainly.
        Socrates: And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or bad bodily condition?

        Throughout the dialogue Gorgias, Socrates poses a large number of questions for Gorgias to respond to, proving his usage of the Socratic dialect. The Socratic dialect, which David Abram writes about in his book The Spell of the Sensuous, is a method of asking a speaker to develop on his/her thoughts, which can be done through a series of questions. As seen above, Socrates repeatedly asks Gorgias to expand on his concise answers, prompting him to think about his ideas from different perspectives. Socrates’ usage of the Socratic dialect is clear to readers, supporting Abram’s claim that the Socratic dialect forces speakers to separate themselves from their original, habitual thoughts.

      • SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450
        mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter.
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Then, as the other arts have to do with words, why do you not call them by the name of ‘rhetoric’, since you call rhetoric any art that is
        concerned with words?
        GORGIAS. Because all the knowledge of the other arts is in general, Socrates,
        concerned with manual crafts and similar activities, whereas rhetoric deals with no such manual product but all its activity and all that it accomplishes
        is through the medium of words. Therefore I claim that the art of rhetoric has to do with words, and maintain that my claim is correct.

        Abram’s interpretation of Socrates’s Socratic Method directly supports this interaction between Socrates and Gorgias about the true nature of the term “rhetoric.” Socrates proceeds to question him to clarify exactly Gorgias’s genuine belief in the term. With specific question after question, Socrates continuously rooted out weaknesses in Gorgias’s argument. This was his way of guiding them to form their own solid opinion on facts rather than allowing him to answer with established opinions.

      • SOCRATES. I will tell you. Just what that persuasion is which you claim is
        produced by rhetoric, and with what subjects it deals,1 assure you, I do not but I have a suspicion as to what you mean, and its field. Yet I shall ask you none the less what you mean by the conviction produced
        by rhetoric and what is its province. And why shall I ask you instead of speak’iilg myself, when I have this suspicion? Not for your sake, but because I am anxious that the argument should so proceed as to clarify to the utmost the matter under discussion. Consider whether I am right in asking you that further question: ifI had asked you what kind ofpainter Zeuxis was and you had answered, a painter of living creatures, might I not with justice ask you, what kind of living creatures, and where they may be found?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRA TES. And the reason is that there are other painters with many other
        living subjects? GORGIAS. Yes.
        . SOCJ!.A TES. Whereas, if Zeuxis had been the only painter, yours would have been a good answer?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. Then come, tell me about rhetoric. Do you think that rhetoric
        alone produces persuasion or do other arts as well? What I mean is this:
        when a man teaches a subject, does he persuade where he teaches, or not? GORGIAS. One cannot deny that, Socrates: certainly he persuades.

        David Abram, the author of “Animism and the Alphabet” clearly perceives that Socrates’ oral style first “consisted in asking a speaker to explain what he has said”. He then notes how the purpose of this, indeed the driving force behind Socrates’ discussions, was to force his “interlocutors to separate themselves, for the first time, from their own word”. Overall, Socrates aimed to form a wedge between his fellow conversationalists and the repetitive, mnemonic oral style that was so popular before writing. He asks them questions with the intention of making them delve deeper into why they believed what they preached, and not just parrot repetitive phrases. This pattern is well represented in the excerpt above, in which Socrates prodes at Gorgias’ credences with multiple questions, generally asking him to explain himself and his purpose. It seems, however, that Socrates may have met his match of sorts in Gorgias, who (at least in the exchange above) remains succinct and unshakable in his answers.

      • SOCRATES. Then listen, Gorgias, to what surprises me in your statement: for perhaps you were right and I misunderstood you. You claim you can make a rhetorician of any man who wishes to learn from you?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. With the result that he would be convincing about any subject
        before a crowd, not through instruction but by persuasion?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. Well, you said just now that a rhetorician will be more persuasive than a doctor regarding health.
        GORGIAS. Yes, I said so, before a crowd.
        The term “Socratic dialectic”, as described by Eric Havelock and presented in Abram’ s “The Spell of the Sensuous”, is directly observed in Plato’ s Gorgias. Socrates, in his dialogue with Gorgias, is asking him questions in a deepening sequence, in order to reach a point where rhetoric could be actually defined, and not merely explained. As unfolded in the passage above, throughout the interaction, Socrates does continuously ask his interlocutor “to explain himself or to repeat his statement”, as Abram suggests he does. His methods and his tendency to bombard Gorgias, but also Polus for that matter, with questions, show how much he values them as the means which lead to true knowledge and greater understanding. As Abram correctly advocates, most terms including “justice” were only seen as events, and people’s opinions on them were fixed. Socrates accomplished in this dialogue to communicate how the characteristics of one profession (rhetoric) could be applied to many other occupations as well (like medicine), and are not rooted in specific ideas, which are prone to change.

      • GORGIAS. Something, Socrates, that is in very truth the greatest boon: for it brings freedom to mankind in general and to each man dominion over others in his own country.

        SOCRATES. And what exactly do you mean by that?
        
GORGIAS. I mean the power to convince by your words the judges in court, the senators in council, the people in the assembly or in any other gathering of a citizen body. And yet possessed of such power you will make the doctor, you will make the trainer your slave: and your business man will prove to be making money, not for himself, but for another, for you who can speak and persuade multitudes.

        SOCRATES. Now at last, Gorgias, you have revealed most precisely, it seems to me, what art you consider rhetoric to be: and ifI understand you aright, you assert that rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and that all its activity is concerned with this, and this is its sum and substance. Can you state any wider scope for rhetoric than to produce persuasion in the soul of the hearer?

        In his philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias, the philosopher Plato to uncover the true essence of rhetoric and what it means to be a rhetorician at this moment in Ancient Greece. The democracy credited as the basis for all modern democracies, Athens relied on the vote of the people and the power of the individual to persuade to make decisions, forge laws, and fight wars. Gorgias traveled from city to city teaching the art of rhetoric, which some viewed as dangerous work to the democracy since rhetoric over reason could sway a council’s vote. In this dialogue, Socrates implores Gorgias to understand the true virtue, power, and importance of rhetoric.The reason Socrates was able to make Gorgias extract a detailed, specific, and applied explanation of a common concept is through the art of the socratic method, as explained by David Abram in his article “Animism and the Alphabet”. The socratic method asks the individual not to give a textbook definition of a concept, but apply it to their own lives, their own time in history, their own set of beliefs and laws, and make a fabricated concept become an applicable part of daily life. The key to this power lies in Socrates seemingly vague question in the form of one word – ‘you’. He is asking not to recite what Gorgias already knows, he is imploring him to genuinely process the question in terms of his own self, profession, and importance in society. This is exactly how Socrates made his peers and students think deeper and in a more complex fashion, it is thinking beyond what you should know by combing the concepts with what is already in front of you.

      • Socrates: Well, you said just now that a rhetorician will be more persuasive than a doctor regarding health.

        Gorgias: Yes, I said so, before a crowd.

        Socrates: And before a crowd means among the ignorant: for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing than the doctor.

        Gorgias: That is quite true.

        Socrates: Then if he is more persuasive than the doctor, he is more persuasive than the man who knows?

        Gorgias: Certainly.

        Socrates: Though not himself a doctor.

        Gorgias: Yes.

        Socrates: And he who is not a doctor is surely ignorant of what a doctor knows.

        Gorgias: Obviously.

        Socrates: Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor, the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert. Is that our conclusion, or is something else?

        Gorgias: That is the conclusion, in this instance.

        Abram’s remark on the Socratic method is displayed throughout Plato’s dialogue in which “Socrates forced his interlocutors to separate themselves, for the first time, from their own words.” The purpose, is to help the conversationalist realize the difference between speaking with meaning and reciting information that has become a routine. In asking Gorgias a multitude of questions on a familiar topic and then rephrasing his answers, Socrates makes Gorgias ponder the meaning of his own words. Exemplified in the passage above, Socrates is asking the questions and in the beginning, Gorgias answers them with confidence. However, as the questions continue, it is evident that Gorgias himself is inconsistent in his answers which proves the purpose of the Socratic method.

      • GORGIAS. I think your method is right, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES .. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or D knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        GORGIAS. You are right.
        SOCRATES. But both those who have learned and those who believe have been persuaded. GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Shall we lay it down then that there are two forms of persuasion, the one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. Now which kind of conviction about right and wrong is produced in the lawcourts and other gatherings by rhetoric? That which issues in belief without knowledge, or that which issues in knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Evidently, Socrates, that which issues in belief.

        It is evident in the aforementioned lines that Socrates’s method of language and communication. Through the questions posed, it is clear that Socrates wanted to almost walk Gorgias through his conceptual take on the ideas of belief and persuasion. Through his actions, Socrates essentially is able to develop thoughts in the mind of whom he is questioning: Socratic Dialect. Abram expresses exactly this in his book The Spell of the Sensuous. He argues that this concept is “is none other than the literate intellect, that part of the self that is born and strengthened in relation to the written letters.” This is proven through the discussion as drawn out above.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call
        ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES .. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or D
        knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to
        you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I
        think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.

        Socrates does indeed use the socratic method outlined by Abram. “By asking the speaker to explain himself or to repeat his statement in different terms, Socrates forced his interlocutors to separate themselves, for the first time, from their own words.” Almost in a method similar to persistence, Socrates bombards the subject with questions–just like a modern day therapist does. These questions, as Abram outlines, cause the subject to become detached from their argument and begin to question what they are saying. This is a highly effective method, however, it does take time and carefully worded questions. However, if you can get to the root of the opponents’ argument, their entire viewpoint can be shifted.

      • SOCRATES. Good:andnowanswerinthesamewayaboutrhetoric:whatisthe
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E
        treatment will restore their health?
        GORGJAS. No.
        SOCRA TES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRA TES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Ofcourse.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450A
        mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients? GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words. GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Wordsaboutdiseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or
        bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter.

        Abram’s book The Spell of Sensuous affirms Socrates and Gorgias’s contemplation about what rhetoric is in its truest form by explaining the ways of Socratic dialect. In this passage, Socrates continues to question Gorgias with each question getting exceedingly specific, until he has sort of gotten rid of the downfalls of his belief. This in itself shows Socrates teaching with his method. Instead of just giving him the answer straight away, he continues to ask questions until Gorgias gets to the answer himself.

      • SOCRATES. Well, you said just now that a rhetorician will be more persuasive
        than a doctor regarding health.
        GORGIAS. Yes, I said so, before a crowd.
        SOCRATES. And before a crowd means among the ignorant: for surely, among
        those who know, he will not be more convincing than the doctor.
        GORGIAS. That is quite true.
        SOCRATES. ·Then if he is more persuasive than the· doctor, he is more
        persuasive than the man who knows?
        Certainly.
        SOCRATES. Though not himself a doctor. B
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And he who is not a doctor is surely ignorant of what a doctor
        knows.
        GORGIAS. Obviously.
        SOCRATES. Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the
        doctor, the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the
        . expert. Is that our coriclusion, or is something else?
        GORGIAS. That is the conclusion, in this instance.
        SOCRATES, Is not the position of the rhetorician and of rhetoric the same with
        respect to other arts also? It has no need to know the truth about things but c
        merely to discover a technique of persuasion, so as to appear among the
        ignorant to have more knowledge than the expert?
        GORGIAS. But is not this a great comfort, Socrates, to be able without learning
        any other arts but this one, to prove in no way inferior to the specialists?
        Socrates’ method fits the pattern described by Abram exactly. He repeatedly asks Gorgias questions about his profession of being “The art of Rhetoric”, which Abram describes in his book ‘The Spell of Sensuous’ as “to separate themselves, that is, from the phrases and formulas that had become habitual”. This is evident as the dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates develops and Socrates uses the infamous ‘Socratic method’ to continuously question Gorgias and his so-called ‘profession’ of being a rhetorician. As in fact, this ‘profession’ is not as impressive as we may think and due to the persistence of Socrates, we find out that the art of being a rhetorician is actually being “more convincing among the ignorant than the expert”. Thanks to the Socratic method, we can dig deeper into what we initially are told to fold out the deeper meaning and truth.

      • SOCRATES. But now it is clear that this same rhetorician would never do wrong, is it not?
        GORGIAS. It is clear.
        SOCRATES. And in our earlier discussion, Gorgias, it was stated that rhetoric is concerned with words that deal, not with the odd and even, but with right and wrong. Is that so?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Now at the time when stated this, I considered that rhetoric could never be a thing of evil, since its discourse is always concerned with justice: but when a little later you said that the rhetorician might actually make an evil use of rhetoric, I was surprised, and considering that what was said was inconsistent

        As understood from David Abram’s writing about Socrates, Socrates uses questions to his advantage by challenging everything Gorgias has said. Abram claims Socrates is primarily using “a method for disrupting the mimetic thought patterns of oral culture,” therefore allowing Socrates to create a stronger argument with the information he has accumulated. Throughout Gorgias, Socrates consistently questions everything that Gorgias says. One of the main instances where this occurs is when Gorgias states that rhetoric is used for justice and cannot be used for injustice. Through further investigation by Socrates, however, Gorgias also states that he believes anyone who uses rhetoric for evil should be banished or even put to death. As a result of Socrates’ interrogation, Socrates can catch where Gorgias contradicts himself and use the information to create a stronger claim against Gorgias.

      • SOCRATES. Now do you remember saying a short while ago that we should not
        blame our trainers or expel them from our cities, ifa boxer practises his art in a wrongful manner and does injury, and so too if a rhetorician makes wrongful use ofhis rhetoric, we should not censure or banish his instructor but rather the guilty man who wrongly employs rhetoric? Was this said or not?
        GORGIAS. It was said.
        SOCRATES. But now it is clear that this same rhetorician would never do
        wrong, is it not?
        GORGIAS. It is clear.
        SOCRATES. And in our earlier discussion, Gorgias, it was stated that rhetoric is
        concerned with words that deal, not with the odd and even, but with right
        and wrong. Is that so?
        GoRGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Now at the time when stated this, I considered that rhetoric
        could never be a thing of evil, since its discourse is always concerned with justice: but when a little later you said that the rhetorician might actually make an evil use ofrhetoric, I was surprised, and considering that what was said was inconsistent, I spoke as I did, saying that if, like myself, you thought it of to be refuted, it was worth while pursuing the conversa- tion: but if not, we should let it drop. And as a result of our subsequent review you can see for yourself it is admitted that the rhetorician is incapable of making a wrong use of rhetoric and unwilling to do wron·g. Now, by the dog, Gorgias, it will need no short discussion to settle satisfactorily where the truth lies.

        Socratic dialectic is defined as the action of asking a speaker to explain what he has said. This is meant to challenge his mimetic thought oral patterns and it was a method introduced by Socrates, a greek philosopher who seeked for the truth. In his essay “Animisn and the Alphabet” by David Abrams, he discusses how the socratic method gets speakers to listen to and ponder their own speaking by continually asking his interlocutors to repeat and explain what they had said in other words. Proof that this method is effective and was often used by Socrates himself is the excerpt above from Gorgias, a dialogue between Socrates and Georgias written by Plato, Socrates’s student. In the excerpt one can see how Socrates while conversating with Gorgias asks him a set of questions ultimately set him up to contradict himself, and it proves a very effective way of dismatelling other people’s ideas.

      • SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter.
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Then, as the other arts have to do with words, why do you not call them by the name of ‘rhetoric’, since you call rhetoric any art that is concerned with words?
        GORGIAS. Because all the knowledge of the other arts is in general, Socrates, concerned with manual crafts and similar activities, whereas rhetoric deals with no such manual product but all its activity and all that it accomplishes is through the medium of words. Therefore I claim that the art of rhetoric has to do with words, and maintain that my claim is correct

        David Abram’s account of “Socratic dialect” is clearly displayed throughout this passage. Over the course of this conversation, Gorgias’s main argument is continuously questioned by Socrates. At first, his responses to this are very concise, mainly one word. Therefore, he comes across as very direct and sure of himself. However, with each question, it became much easier to find flaws in Gorgias’s statements. Through this method, we eventually find that his argument was not as strong as it originally seemed.

      • SOCRATES: Well then: you claim that you are an expert in the art of rhetoric D and that you can make rhetoricians of others. Now just what is the scope of rhetoric? Weaving, for example, has to do with the making of garments: you agree?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And music with composing melodies?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. By Hera, Gorgias, I marvel at your answers: they could not be
        briefer.
        GORGIAS. Yes, I think I succeed pretty well, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E
        treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Ofcourse.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.

        Throughout the exchange between Gorgias and Socrates, Socrates questions Gorgias to find the meaning of rhetoric and what about it makes it an art. In addition to knowing what makes rhetoric an art, Socrates also questions Gorgias on what sets rhetoric apart from other well known art forms such as arithmetic and geometry. Through his use of Socratic Dialectic or “ asking a speaker to explain what he has said.” By asking Gorgias these seemingly simple questions, Socrates is able to piece together what makes rhetoric and art in Gorgias’ eyes. From his definition of rhetoric, Socrates then concludes that rhetoric is not an art and is more of a “cookery.”

      • SOCRATES. Let us take once more the same arts as we discussed just now. Arithmetic and the arithmetician teach us, do they not, the properties of a number?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And consequently persuade us?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Then arithmetic is also a creator of persuasion?
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Now, ·if anyone should ask us what kind of persuasion and in what field, we shall answer him, I suppose, that which teaches about the odd and the even in all their quantities: and we shall be able to prove that all the other arts just mentioned are creators of persuasion and name the type and the field, shall we not?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not the only creator of persuasion.
        GORGIAS. That is true

        During their exchange, Socrates prods Gorgias with questions, asking him what he believes the nature of rhetoric to be. David Abram explains this in his book The Spell of the Sensuous, labeling it as the Socratic method. The Socratic method, as shown in this conversation between Socrates and Gorgias involves “asking a speaker to explain what he has said” (Abram) to keep the person off guard. By asking the speaker to explain themself, they had to rephrase what they were saying, which was effective because, in a primary oral culture, it was difficult for the speaker to maintain their point without mnemonic devices. By asking Gorgias so many questions, Socrates is able to get him further away from his point.

      • SOCRATES. It seems that he does not quite answer the question asked.
        GORGIAS. Weli, if you prefer it, you may ask him yourself.
        SOCRATES. No, not if you are ready to answer instead: I would much rather
        question you. For it is obvious from what Polus has said that he is much
        better versed in what is called rhetoric than in dialogue.
        POLUS. How is that, Socrates?
        SOCRATES. Why, Polus, because when Chaerepho asks in what art Gorgias is you praise his art as though someone were attacking it, but neglect to answer what it is.
        POLUS. Did I not answer that it was the noblest of arts?
        SOCRATES. Certainly. But no one is asking in what kind of art Gorgias is engaged but what it actually is and what we should call Gorgias. On the lines laid down before by Chaerepho, when you answered correctly and briefly, tell us now in similar manner what this art is and what name we must give to Gorgias. Or rather, Gorgias, tell us yourself in what art you are expert and what we should call you.
        GORGIAS. The art of Rhetoric, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Then we must call you a rhetorician?
        GORGIAS. Yes, and a good one, Socrates, if you really want to call me what, in
        Homer’s expression, I boast myself to be.
        SOCRATES. That is what I want.
        GORGIAS. Then call me so.

        David Abram describes Socrates as a person who questions his interlocutor about “the real meaning of the qualitative terms they unthinkingly employ in their speaking, they confidently reply by recounting particular instances of the quality under consideration” (110). In the chosen extract above, Socrates also questioned what Gorgias had answered once, asking him to defend for himself again. An interruption brought up by Socrates helped him to, according to Abram, “stunned his listeners out of the mnemonic trance demand by orality , and hence out of the sensuous, storied realm to which they were accustomed” (110).

        • Such interruption could ruin Socrates’ opponents to a very large extent. Since they were living in a society with primary oral culture, people highly relied rhetoric method to memorize long piece written work.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES .. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say toyou, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        GORGIAS. You are right.
        SOCRATES. But both those who have learned and those who believe have been persuaded.
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Shall we lay it down then that there are two forms of persuasion, the one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.

        Abrams’ account of the Socratic method is based on the basic principle of letting the speaker explain what he said about something. The questions that are asked by Socrates are a part of this, helping the listeners to deepen their understanding. In the above passage, it is all a question and response over and over again. However, it can be seen that all these questions help towards a goal of deepening understanding of something. Sometimes, distinct questions are asked, later to be combined so that this understanding can be gained. Here, Socrates asks these questions about knowledge to Gorgias. The way Socrates phrases each question effortlessly leads to the next to continue his point, to help the listener understant.

      • SOCRATES. And what exactly do you mean by that?
        GORGIAS. I mean the power to convince by your words the judges in court, the
        senators in council, the people in the assembly or in any other gathering of a citizen body. And yet possessed of such power you will make the doctor, you will make the trainer your slave: and your business man will prove to be making money, not for himself, but for another, for you who can speak and persuade multi.tudes.
        SOCRA TES. Now at last, Gorgias, you have revealed most precisely, it seems to me, what art you consider rhetoric to be: and ifI understand you aright, you assert that rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and that all its activity is concerned with this, and this is its sum and substance. Can you state any wider scope for rhetoric than to produce persuasion in the soul of the hearer?
        GORGIAS. lly no means, Socrates: I think you define it adequately: for that is its sum and substance.
        SOCRATES. Then listen, Gorgias. I am convinced, you may be sure, that if there is any man who in a discussion with another is anxious to know just what is the real subject under discussion, I am such a man: and I am confident that you are too.
        GORGIAS. What then, Socrates?

        Abrams effectively describes the Socratic method with a longwinded yet clear depiction of his ideas and how they would be implemented. Providing the background along with various examples clear space for the best understanding of how Socrates worked. Socrates used a variety of deep questions to try and force his companions to further their thoughts and develop a deeper understanding of something that he may not even be familiar with. With Gorgias, Socrates is asking question after question forcing Gorgias to expand on the many ideas that he makes so a fuller conclusion can be made. These conclusions have been made by both Socrates and Gorgias.

      • SOCRATES. And now let us have your reply, Corgias. Rhetoric is one ofthe arts o
        that achieve and fulfill their function entirely through words, is it not?
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Tell me then in what field. What is the subject matter ofthe words
        employed by rhetoric?
        GORGIAS. The greatest and noblest of human affairs, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. But, Gorgias, what you are now saying is disputable and not yet E
        clear. I think you must have heard men singing at drinking parties the familiar song in which they enumerate our blessings, health being the first, beautjr the second, and third, as the composer of the song claims, wealth obtained without dishonesty.

        I believe that this is a very good example of the use of socratic method. Socrates and Gorgias have different points yet they respond to each other in very calm and pointed manners which is not only part of the definition but what I believe we all strive to accomplish during discussions. A quote later on in 453B is also a great example of both Socrates and Gorgias both listening and arguing to deepen both of their understandings in the matter. It is one thing to hear what someone has to say but when you listen to it and respond, a whole new understanding it made.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call
        ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES .. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or
        knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to
        you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I
        think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        GORGIAS. You are right.
        SOCRATES. But both those who have learned and those who believe have been
        persuaded.
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Shall we lay it down then that there are two forms of persuasion,
        the one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. Now which kind of conviction about right and wrong is produced
        in the lawcourts and other gatherings by rhetoric? That which issues in
        belief without knowledge, or that which issues in knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Evidently, Socrates, that which issues in belief.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric apparently is a creator of a conviction that is
        persuasive but not instructive about right and wrong.

        The above excerpt from Plato’s Gorgias demonstrates David Abram’s perspective on the Socratic method. Abram asserts that before Socrates, rhetoricians’ technique was steeped in the ways of the world and referenced a culture’s fundamental stories. However, Socrates aimed to question the “habitual” words of rhetoricians, causing them to snap out of the “mimetic thought patterns” of Greek oral culture. In this instance, Socrates forces Gorgias to reevaluate his thoughts on the difference between knowledge and belief and its relation to persuasion through intense interrogation, or as Abram puts it, “questioning them regarding the real meaning
        of the qualitative terms they unthinkingly employ in their speaking.” Through mode of dialectic, Socrates compels Gorgias to thoroughly ponder not only the qualities of rhetoric, but his ideas on the fundamental definitions of knowledge and belief.

      • “GORGIAS. Something, Socrates, that is in very truth the greatest boon: for it brings freedom to mankind in general and to each man dominion over others in his own country.
        SOCRATES. And what exactly do you mean by that?
        GORGIAS. I mean the power to convince by your words the judges in court, the senators in council, the people in the assembly or in any other gathering of a citizen body. And yet possessed of such power you will make the doctor, you will make the trainer your slave: and your business man will prove to be making money, not for himself, but for another, for you who can speak and persuade multi.tudes.
        SOCRATES. Now at last, Gorgias, you have revealed most precisely, it seems to me, what art you consider rhetoric to be: and ifI understand you aright, you assert that rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and that all its activity is concerned with this, and this is its sum and substance. Can you state any wider scope for rhetoric than to produce persuasion in the soul of the hearer?
        GORGIAS. lly no means, Socrates: I think you define it adequately: for that is its sum and substance.
        SOCRATES. Then listen, Gorgias. I am convinced, you may be sure, that if there is any man who in a discussion with another is anxious to know just what is the real subject under discussion, I am such a man: and I am confident that you are too.”

        The above is an example of disrupting thought, as discussed by David Abram in “The Spell of the Sensuous.” Abram discusses a common method, known as the “Socratic dialect” which is when one person asks the speaker to clarify what they said, breaking up the speakers train of thought and forcing them to think deeper into the meaning behind their words and not simply following the rhythmic tune of their own voice. This method forces the speaker to also separate themselves from their words by having to rephrase and change them according to the audience, instead of the subconscious association with the speaker to their words- which are two very different things.

      • SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E
        treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of word.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Ofcourse.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450A
        mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients? GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words. GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words About Diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or
        bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is B
        concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter. GORGIAS. Evidently.

        Abram’s point of view on Socrates’ way of arguing relates to this conversation Socrates and Georgias had. In this conversation between Socrates and Georgias, Socrates sort of rips Georgias’ argument apart. Before Arguing against Socrates, Georgia had his own distinctive opinion and his point of view. However, after having conversations with Socrates, Georgias slowly but surely loses his starting point and falls into Socrates’ side. Just like how Abram states that Socrates starts by asking the person to explain what he or she has said, Socrates repeats asking many questions to Georgias, which eventually led him to discover the truth by himself. This is interesting, because Socrates does not tell him the answer, but he makes Georgias find the answer on his own. Socrates is just there kind of guiding him to discover the truth by asking questions.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES .. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say toyou, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        GORGIAS. You are right.
        SOCRATES. But both those who have learned and those who believe have been persuaded.
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Shall we lay it down then that there are two forms of persuasion, the one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.

        The conversation that occurs between Gorgias and Socrates displays the Socratic Dialect. This is shown by Socrates asking Georgias numerous amount of questions to draw out his ideas. Abram’s perception of Socrates’ dialect is shown through Socrates and Gorgia’s conversation. During this conversation, Socrates’s purpose for continuously asking questions after Gorgias replies is to extract Gorgia’s true reasoning. He did not want Gorgias to answer with his emotions, rather he wanted him to have his own belief in the argument using raw facts.

      • SOCRATES. Then according to this principle he who has learned justice is just.
        GEORGIAS. Most assuredly.
        SOCRATES. And the just man, I suppose, does just acts?
        GEORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Now the rhetorician must necessarily be just, and the just man must wish to do just actions?
        GEORGIAS: Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Then the just man will never wish to do injustice?
        GEORGIAS. Necessarily.
        SOCRATES. And our argument demands that the rhetorician be just?
        GEORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES: Then the rhetorician will never wish to do wrong?
        GEORGIAS. Evidently not.

        The Socratic dialect present in the above excerpt features Socrates’ signature strategy of posing questions that separate the speaker he has chosen to converse with from their original statement. David Abram elaborates on this technique, adding that through separating the speaker from the “phrase and formulas” that they had become accustomed to, their patterns of thought were disrupted. In this particular conversation, Georgias finds himself in a later stage of Socrates’ questioning where he has already been backed into a corner. It is easiest for him to answer with simple agreements, taking him further down Socrates’ predetermined path meant to introduce a contradiction in Georgias’ line of reasoning. These responses are evidence of how the effective questioning of every aspect present in another’s argument gives control of the conversation over to the questioner.

      • “GORGIAS. Something, Socrates, that is in very truth the greatest boon: for it brings freedom to mankind in general and to each man dominion over others in his own country.
        SOCRATES. And what exactly do you mean by that?
        GORGIAS. I mean the power to convince by your words the judges in court, the senators in council, the people in the assembly or in any other gathering of a citizen body. And yet possessed of such power you will make the doctor, you will make the trainer your slave: and your business man will prove to be making money, not for himself, but for another, for you who can speak and persuade multitudes.
        SOCRATES. Now at last, Gorgias, you have revealed most precisely, it seems to me, what art you consider rhetoric to be: and if I understand you aright, you assert that rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and that all its activity is concerned with this, and this is its sum and substance. Can you state any wider scope for rhetoric than to produce persuasion in the soul of the hearer?” (453A).

        The conversation between Gorgias and Socrates illuminates Socrates tendency to be frequently “questioning them [interlocutors] regarding the real meaning of the qualitative terms they unthinkingly employ in their speaking” (Abram 110). They are debating what it means to be a rhetorician and what exactly the art of rhetoric is. As always, Socrates has an answer in mind before posing any inquiry and he takes this opportunity to “abstract and ponder” these terms that he feels Gorgias explains inadequately (Abram 111).

      • SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes. SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter.
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Then, as the other arts have to do with words, why do you not call them by the name of ‘rhetoric’, since you call rhetoric any art that is concerned with words?
        This excerpt is a debate between Socrates and Gorgias over the meaning of rhetoric. This conversation follows Abram’s interpretation of the Socratic Method rather well. Socrates relentlessly questions Gorgias and his theories as to find out the real argument he is making. This is a prime example of the Socratic dialect at work in which one questions their opposer to find the strengths and weaknesses of their argument.

      • SOCRATES. Then come, tell me about rhetoric. Do you think that rhetoric
        alone produces persuasion or do other arts as well? What I mean is this: when a man teaches a subject, does he persuade where he teaches, or not?
        GORGIAS. One cannot deny that. Socrates: certainly he persuades.
        SOCRATES. Let us take once more the same arts as we discussed just now. Arithmetic and the arithmetician teach us, do they not, the properties of a number?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And consequently persuade us?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Then arithmetic is also a creator of persuasion?
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Now, if anyone should ask us what kind of persuasion and in what field, we shall answer him, I suppose, that which teaches about the odd and the even in all their quantities: and we shall be able to prove that all the other arts just mentioned are creators of persuasion and name the type and the field, shall we not?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not the only creator of persuasion.
        GORGIAS. That is true
        SOCRATES. Then since other arts besides rhetoric produce this result, we should be justified in asking next, as in the case of the painter, of what kind of persuasion is rhetoric the art, and what is its province? Do you not think that is a fair question to ask next?

        This exchange above is a prime example of the Socratic Dialect. By constantly asking the interlocutors to explain and rephrase what they already said, Socrates is essentially breaking them out of their comfort zone and leading them to question their preconceptions on their deepest fixed beliefs. In this exchange between the two, Socrates attempts to use a seemingly flawless chain of logic where he goes to explain how every field of study has the same property as rhetorics in that they all share the power of persuasion, which begs the question of what sets rhetorics apart from the rest and what exactly is rhetorics trying to persuade. What’s more intriguing is that even after Gorgias responds that rhetorics persuades about morality and justice, Socrates proceeds to point out that this doesn’t answer anything as long as Gorgias fails to give a personal interpretation of the essence of justice without saying what’s already been said. I believe this method can easily break someone’s worldview and bring out his/her truest self.

      • “SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.”

        David Abram writes about the “Socratic dialect,” a concept where many questions are asked to the speaker to prompt for an engaging discussion. Abram explains the method further, stating: “By asking the speaker to explain himself or to repeat his statement in different terms, Socrates forced his interlocutors to separate themselves.” This is present throughout Gorgias which reveals a dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias. Socrates demonstrates the “Socratic dialect” by posing various questions to further Gorgias’ thinking. For example, Socrates presses on after he asks Gorgias what the field of this science is: “of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick of treatment will restore their health?” This segment of their dialogue supports Abram’s description of the “Socratic dialect” as there is a “clear disruption of mimetic thought patterns of oral culture.” Socrates helps Gorgias separate his thinking and truly ponder about his own words. This guides him to reach a greater, more complex understanding and knowledge from his ideas.

      • SOCRATES. Gorgias: imagine you are questioned by these men and by myself as well, and answer what it is
        you claim to be the greatest blessing to man, and claim also to produce.
        GORGIAS. Something, Socrates, that is in very truth the greatest boon: for it
        brings freedom to mankind in general and to each man dominion over others in his own country.
        SOCRATES. And what exactly do you mean by that?
        GORGIAS. I mean the power to convince by your words the judges in court, the
        senators in council, the people in the assembly or in any other gathering of
        a citizen body. And yet possessed of such power you will make the doctor,
        you will make the trainer your slave: and your business man will prove to be
        making money, not for himself, but for another, for you who can speak and persuade multitudes.
        SOCRATES. Now at last, Gorgias, you have revealed most precisely, it seems to me, what art you consider rhetoric to be: and ifI understand you aright, you
        assert that rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and that all its activity is concerned with this, and this is its sum and substance. Can you state any wider scope for rhetoric than to produce persuasion in the soul of the
        hearer?
        GORGIAS. By no means, Socrates: I think you define it adequately: for that is its sum and substance.

        Socrates, in his conversation, continues to constantly ask questions to clarify what Gorgias means. By doing this, not only does Socrates get a clearer picture of Gorgias’s ideas, but Gorgias, as well, learns more about his own views and what rhetoric means to him. This is exactly the Socratic method that Abram brings up in his own work, “continually asking his interlocutors to repeat and explain what they had said in other words, by getting them thus to listen to and ponder their own speaking” (Abram 109). Abram explains that many speakers become so used to their way of speaking that they don’t themselves know what their own words really mean. This directly applies to Socrates’ dialogue where Gorgias initially does not know how to define rhetoric, but due to the Socratic Method, he is able to come up with a definition.

      • SOCRATES. Let us take once more the same arts as we discussed just now.
        Arithmetic and the arithmetician teach us, do they not, the properties ofa number?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRA TES. And consequently persuade us?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRA TES. Then arithmetic is also a creator of persuasion?
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Now, ·ifanyone should ask us what kind ofpersuasion and in what
        field, we shall answer him, I suppose, that which teaches about the odd and
        the even in all their quantities: and we shall be able to prove that all the 454A other arts just mentioned are creators ofpersuasion and name the type and
        the field, shall we not?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRA TES. Then rhetoric is not the only creator of persuasion.
        GORGIAS. That is true
        SOCRA TES. Then ·since other arts besides rhetoric produce this result, we
        should be justified in asking next, as in the case ofthe painter, ofwhat kind ofpersuasion is rhetoric the art, and what is its province? Do you not think B that is a fair question to ask next?
        GORGIAS. I do.
        SOCRA TES. Then answer, Gorgias, since you share my opinion.

        Throughout this passage, Socrates clearly displays the rhetorical technique he is famous for, the “Socratic method”. Abram describes this technique phenomenally when he writes “By continually asking his interlocutors to repeat and explain what they had said in other words, by getting them thus to listen to and ponder their own speaking, Socrates stunned his listeners out of the mnemonic trance demanded by orality, and hence out of the sensuous, storied realm to which they were accustomed.” This phrase eloquently sums up the purpose for the Socratic method, which is to allow speakers to truly analyze and ponder the implications and true intentions of their words. Additionally, as Abrams says, the Socratic method was an incredibly useful technique to allow audiences to better understand what a speaker was saying. By questioning his interlocutors over and over until they boiled down their verbose, complex arguments into clear and succinct points, Socrates made their discussions much more accessible for those listening. Abrams also points out that Socrates and his method effectively changed the course of discussions about virtue, mathematics, etc from simply recounting examples to actually investigating and defining their true, permanent essence. Throughout his essay, Abrams makes a strong case for the Socratic method being a revolutionary form of dialogue that changed rhetoric and oral discussion for the better.

      • SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.

        After reading Gorgias, it is clear that Socrates’ method of dialect fits perfectly with the pattern described by David Abram. Abram explains how Socratic dialect involves a person asking questions to the speaker about their statements to make them think more in-depth about what they are arguing. By asking the speaker follow-up questions or to reword their concept in a different way, it forces them to rethink what they are saying and whether it is their own ideas or if they are being influenced by society. This was especially important in oral cultures as people often got trapped into using common phrases in order to make their speech easier to remember. However, this also caused people to recite many similar concepts, so using the Socratic dialect forced people out of their comfort zones, making them think more individualist thoughts. In Gorgias, Socrates constantly questions Gorgias while he is speaking, utilizing the patterns that Abram discusses to further the depth of the conversation. These methods are still used to this day in educational settings, as Socratic seminars are a common task given to students in school as it forces them to question one another’s ideas, helping them eventually reach a deeper understanding of the topic.

      • SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?

        During Socrates and Gorgias dialogue, Socrates constantly asked questions about the meaning of rhetoric. Through the constant questioning Socrates had for Gorgias, it reinforces Abram’s interpretation of Socratic Method where the questions are used to help shape and engage in a discussion. The prompting of questions Socrates kept on asking Gorgias reveals “Socratic dialect” as the questioning leads to further development of a discussion and thinking on both sides of the conversation. Through the questioning that Socrates gives to Gorgias, it reveals how Socrates is trying to change the way Gorgias thinks in terms of differentiating his thoughts.

      • SOCRATES. And now let us have your reply, Gorgias. Rhetoric is one of the arts that achieve and fulfill their function entirely through words, is it not?
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Tell me then in what field. What is the subject matter of the words employed by rhetoric?
        GORGIAS. The greatest and noblest of human affairs, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. But, Gorgias, what you are now saying is disputable and not yet clear. I think you must have heard men singing at drinking parties the familiar song in which they enumerate our blessings, health being the first, beauty the second, and third, as the composer of the song claims, wealth obtained without dishonesty.
        GORGIAS. I have heard it. But what is the point of your remark?
        SOCRATES. Suppose the men who produce the blessings praised by the author of that song should suddenly appear, the doctor, the trainer, and the businessman, and the doctor should speak first and say: ‘Socrates, Gorgias is deceiving you: it is not his craft, but mine, that is concerned with the greatest blessing to mankind’.

        In this excerpt, Gorgias and Socrates are displaying the Socratic Dialect by having a conversation about the importance of rhetoric. To elaborate and extend his thoughts Socrates askes a multitude of questions. This example closely relates to the thoughts Abrham had about the Socratic dialect because Socrates is trying to make Gorgias deepen his thoughts so he can fully explain what his thoughts are. This also allows for a deeper understanding of the topic, drawing to the facts in Gorgia’s reasoning.

      • GORGIAS. The art of Rhetoric, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Then we must call you a rhetorician?
        GORGIAS. Yes, and a good one, Socrates, if you really want to call me what in Homer’s expression, I boast myself to be.
        SOCRATES. That is what I want
        GORGIAS. Then call me so.
        SOCRATES. Are we to say that you can make rhetoricians of others also?
        GORGIAS. That is the profession I make both here and elsewhere.
        SOCRATES. Would you be willing, Gorgias, to continue our present method of conversing by question and answer, postponing to some other occasion lengthy discourses of the type begun by Polus? You must not, however, them by the name of ‘rhetoric’, since you call rhetoric any art that is concerned with words?

        Socrate’s method fits the pattern described by David Abram. According to Abrams, the Socratic method is a form of dialogue that utilizes the asking of questions and deep conversation in order to gain better understanding and insight of people’s arguments and ideas. This method is unique, however, since it also allows for the person who came up with the topic to further understand and interpret their own ideas in a way previously never thought of. The method was named after ancient Greek philosopher Socrates since it was indeed his method of dispersing his knowledge, ideas and teachings throughout ancient Athens. The “demanded orality” (Abrams) allowed one to “listen to and ponder their own speaking” (Abrams) and this is precisely what occurs between Gorgias’s and Socrates’s dialogue. Here, Socrates is prompting the sophist Gorgias, the rhetorician, to think about what he is saying about himself being a great rhetorician. Socrates then asks Gorgias if he is willing to engage in this “question and answer” (Plato) form which in turn causes Gorgias to think about his “profession” (Plato); this self reflection on one’s thoughts is what defines the Socratic method which is indeed present and the pattern depicted by Abrams.

      • SOCRATES. Well then: you claim that you are an expert in the art of rhetoric and that you can make rhetoricians of others. Now just what is the scope of
        rhetoric? Weaving, for example, has to do with the making of garments: you agree?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And music with composing melodies?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. By Hera, Gorgias, I marvel at your answers: they could not be briefer.
        GORGIAS. Yes, I think I succeed pretty well, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what treatment will restore their health?
        GORGJAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.

        Socrates has long held the belief that an unexamined life is not worth living. He believes that knowledge and the constant quest for truth are justice, and that ignorance is injustice. To him, an ignorant (or unjust man) tries to assert himself correct over everyone, despite whether he is right or wrong. To disarm his interlocutors, Socrates ask a series of questions that point his fellow interlocutors in the direction of his argument without explicitly stating it. This Socratic dialect poses an independent thought to whom is being asked, so they can formulate their own opinions and separate themselves from their ignorance. We see this not only in the dialogue between himself and Gorgios, but again in “The Republic of Plato” when speaking with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Author David Abram of “The Spell of the Sensous” commends this Socratic dialogue, as this questioning allows the speaker to expand on their own line of reasoning and break the habitual pattern of recitation and ignorance.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES..Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or D knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRA TES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRA TES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        The dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias does fit the pattern put forth by Abrams. Socrates here engages Gorgias through repeated questioning of his logic and through this he forces Gorgias to reflect on his own ideas. His questioning aligns with his infamous Socratic dialect, which Socrates was known for. Through the constant questioning and digging, it causes the other person to reach a reckoning with their own ideas and makes them question their own validity. It forces a separation of idea and person as the opposition must now view their own ideas in an external perspective. Ultimately, this leads to an exacted conclusion from Gorgias that also compels an explanation for his rhetoric, which is all artfully manipulated by Socrates.

      • In the Gorgias, the sophist Gorgias serves as a sort of figurehead for the dialogue. The real theme is Gorgias’ profession, the teaching of rhetoric. We present here only the opening scenes of the
        Gorgias, in which Socrates seeks from Gorgias an answer to his question concerning the nature of rhetoric, namely, “About which of the things which
        exist [ton onton] is it a science [episteme]?”The selection ends with Socrates dividing the arts (technai) into eight parts and showing that both sophistic and rhetoric are sham arts, mere “flatteries,” in relation to the care of the soul, just as cooking and cosmetology are sham arts in relation to the care of the body. Sophistic and rhetoric, like cooking and cosmetology, he says, aims at pleasure rather than at that which is good. for the soul.

        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And music with composing melodies?
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. By Hera, Gorgias, I marvel at your answers: they could not be
        briefer.
        GORGIAS. Yes, I think I succeed pretty well, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E
        treatment will restore their health?
        GORGIAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of word.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450A
        mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.

      • SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what E
        treatment will restore their health?
        GORGJAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just 450A
        mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or
        bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.

        In classic Socratic fashion, the pelt of questions continues for a while, whittling away at the problem before a satisfactory answer is reached. Such is in line with Abram’s description of the Socratic method, which correctly places emphasis on breaking apart ideas via questions that allow for a complete (or rather, more complete) understanding of the matter at hand.

      • SOCRATES: No, not if you are ready to answer instead: I would much rather question you. For it is obvious from what Polus has said that he is much better versed in what is called rhetoric than in dialogue.
        POLUS: How is that, Socrates?
        SOCRATES: Why, Polus, because when Chaerepho asks in what art Gorgias is proficient, you praise his art as though someone were attacking it, but neglect to answer what it is.
        POLUS: Did I not answer that it was the noblest of arts?
        SOCRATES: Certainly. But no one is asking in what kind of art Gorgias is engaged but what it actually is and what we should call Gorgias. On the lines laid down before by Chaerepho, when you answered correctly and briefly, tell us now in similar manner what this art is and what name we must give to Gorgias. Or rather, Gorgias, tell us yourself in what art you are expert and what we should call you.

        Through the dialogue shared between the two we can see an almost aggressive exchange of questions and answers on the topic of how they should regard Gorgias art. Socrates frames these questions using “why” to spur the conversation and dig deeper into Polus’ insights. He also asks him to expand on what he has already said and challenges him to refine and clearly establish his argument such that he is forced to think and respond more rationally.

      • SOCRATES. Then let us consider the next point. Is there a state which you call ‘having learned’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. And such a thing as ‘having believed’?
        GORGIAS. There is.
        SOCRATES. Now do you think that to have learned and to have believed, or
        knowledge and belief, are one and the same or different?
        GORGIAS. I consider them different, Socrates.
        SOCRATES. You are right; and you can prove it thus: if anybody were to say to you, ‘Can there be both a false belief and a true, Gorgias?’ you would, I
        think, say that there is.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. But can there be both a false and a true knowledge?
        GORGIAS. By no means.
        SOCRATES. Then it is obvious that knowledge and belief are not the same.
        GORGIAS. You are right.
        SOCRATES. But both those who have learned and those who believe have been persuaded.
        GORGIAS. That is so.
        SOCRATES. Shall we lay it down then that there are two forms of persuasion, the one producing belief without knowledge, the other knowledge?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.

        Socrate’s method fit David Abram’s perspective towards the Socratic method. By aiming to make the speaker get rid of repeating himself, Socrates allows the interlocutor to reflect on himself through a forceful way. In this part of excerpt, Socrates throws out a series of questions step by step to challenges the interlocutor to think critically and make clear on what he just said. As Abram mentions in his writing that Socrates repetitively ask the interlocutor to explain for himself, Socrates here uses this method to make Gorgia listen to himself and invoke Gorgia’s critical thinking. By doing so, the interlocutor’s own logics become more clear as Socrates insists on seeking the real essence of the interlocutor’s talking.

      • As David Abram analyzes Socrates’ interactions with interlocutors, one thing he notes, which is undeniable, is the discourse Socrates creates by questioning his listeners with the intent of producing a different perspective from the original rhetorical way of life. However, where Abram’s analysis deviates from Socrates’ actions is the purpose. While Abram claims that Socrates’ dialect serves to disrupt the “the mimetic thought patterns of oral culture,” I believe what Socrates’ dialect was actually trying to do was not disrupt it, but rather deepen its user’s understanding of what they were saying, by assigning terms to descriptions that would allow for them to become of importance. He wanted everything to be its own individual, with its own spirit, body, and voice. I don’t believe that Socrates was trying to extract human connection from the world surrounding it; rather, Socrates was trying to heighten that connection. Socrates’ dialect was the glass prism to oral culture’s white light. While oral culture saw all things as one long singular string, Socrates’ dialect took that string and made itself pieces of cloth for clothes to be worn.

        SOCRATES. Good: and now answer in the same way about rhetoric: what is the
        field of this science?
        GORGIAS. Words.
        SOCRATES. Of what kind, Gorgias? Those that reveal to the sick what treatment will restore their health?
        GORGJAS. No.
        SOCRATES. Then rhetoric is not concerned with every kind of words.
        GORGIAS. Certainly not.
        SOCRATES. Yet it makes men able to speak.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. And able to think also about the matter of their discourse?
        GORGIAS. Of course.
        SOCRATES. Now does not the science of medicine, which we have just mentioned, make men able to think and to speak about their patients?
        GORGIAS. Assuredly.
        SOCRATES. Then medicine also, it seems, is concerned with words.
        GORGIAS. Yes.
        SOCRATES. Words about diseases?
        GORGIAS. Certainly.
        SOCRATES. And is not gymnastic concerned with words that relate to good or
        bad bodily condition?
        GORGIAS. Undoubtedly.
        SOCRATES. And so it is with the other arts also, Gorgias: each of them is concerned with words that have to do with its own subject-matter.
        GORGIAS. Evidently.
        SOCRATES. Then, as the other arts have to do with words, why do you not call them by the name of ‘rhetoric’, since you call rhetoric any art that is
        concerned with words?

      • Before the creation of the alphabet, conversation did not have a “reflexive capacity”, keeping it in a state of patterns and specific structures that limited the length of thoughts or their in-depth capabilities. David Abram claims that once the alphabet was created, Socrates took full advantage of it in order to question people’s thoughts- whether they truly meant what they were saying, or if they were just repeating what they remembered. He paints Socrates with a high degree of class and intelligence as he goes on to explain that the Socratic method allowed Socrates to disrupt the “mimetic thought patterns of oral culture”, effectively interrupting people’s predetermined thought patterns and causing them to precisely understand their words.
        However, in Plato’s Gorgias, when Socrates employs the Socratic method, he does not do so in order to stimulate cooperative argumentation or discover underlying presumptions. Instead, he repeatedly questions Gorgias about rhetoric with one thought in mind- to prove that he himself is correct. He uses his line of questioning to decide which direction the conversation goes in, and inevitably manipulates it to support his own opinion and prove that he is the better speaker. Throughout his conversation with Gorgias, Socrates constantly antagonizes him, interrogating him and hardly letting him speak. Once Gorgias finally reaches the level of irritation that Socrates wished for, Socrates asks Gorgias- almost mockingly- if he’d like to stop. He is “afraid” that Gorgias believes that he is speaking “with malice” toward him, and that Gorgias is “more anxious for verbal victory than to investigate the subject under discussion”, because what he is saying is “not quite consistent or in tune “ with what he first said about rhetoric. Overall, Socrates somewhat uses Gorgias’ skill against him, using rhetoric to explain that rhetoric is only used to please, and essentially, evil.

        SOCRATES. I think, Gorgias, that, like myself, you have had much experience in discussions and must have observed that speakers can seldom define the topic of debate and after mutual instruction and enlightenment bring the meeting to a close: but if they are in dispute and one insists that the other’s statements are incorrect or obscure, they grow angry and imagine their opponent speaks with malice toward them, being more anxious for verbal victory than to investigate the subject under discussion. And finally some of them part in the most disgraceful fashion, after uttering and listening to such abusive language that their audience are disgusted with themselves for having deigned to give ear to such fellows. Now why do I say this? Because, it seems to me, what you are now saying is not quite consistent or in tune with what you said at first about rhetoric. But I am afraid to cross-examine you, for fear you might think my pertinacity is against you, and not to the clarification of the matter in question. Now, if you are the same kind of man as I am, I should be glad to question you: if not, I will let you alone. And what kind of man am l? One of those who would gladly be refuted if anything I say is not true, and would gladly refute another who says what is not true, but would be no less happy to be refuted myself than to refute: for I consider that a greater benefit, inasmuch as it is a greater boon to be delivered from the worst of evils oneself than to deliver another. And I believe there is no worse evil for man than a false opinion about the subject of our present discussion. If you then are the same kind of man as I am, let us continue: but if you feel that we should drop the matter, then let us say goodbye to the argument and dismiss it.

      • Q 1. Not only does Euthyphro have a moral predicament about prosecuting his father, he is also stuck between whether his or his father’s actions are more unholy. “You can prosecute your own father without fear that it is you, on the contrary, who are doing an unholy thing?” Socrates questions Euthyphro not for his predicament about who is more unholy but what consitutes honyness to begin with. Socrates Further questions Euthyphro by saying how can you prosecute your father if you, yourself are not holy. Socrates challenges Euthyphro to think about what is moral, holy, and just while considering his own actions. Euthyphro, in my opinion, should carefully consider the consequences and implications behind prosecuting his father before he goes ahead with the act. It is an injustice to murder someone and Euthyphro is right to pursue prosecution.

      • 1. Euryphro faces an immensely complicated predicament. In questioning whether or not to prosecute his father, he must question if his actions are even worse than his father’s. Socrates urges Euryphro to further contemplate what holiness means in the first place through his method of questioning. If Euryphro is not considered holy himself, then how can he prosecute or even judge his father? In my opinion, Euryphro should take time to completely understand what he thinks makes up holiness before jumping to such drastic measures. Clearly murder should be punished, and I do think he should prosecute him, but it never hurts to further understand the meaning of the basic ideas that make up life.

      • 1. Euryphro’s predicament is a very complex one, the idea of personal connection versus the higher order of being. He needs to choose between allegiance of blood and allegiance of “holiness”, which I read as goodness not only to the gods but the society structured around them. This conflict calls to mind the predicament Hamlet faces in Shakespeare’s play. There are differences in plot lines but the essential question both raise is where does allegiance to genetic family start and societal or ideological families begin. Hamlet’s murder of Claudius is in vain though it is in the name of justice because his death did not change the death of his father, and Euryphro condemning his father for unholiness does not erase the unholiness of his own actions. If Hamlet could teach Euryphro anything, it would be that actions are louder than intentions, the ideas of justice and of holiness are often lost when people try to avenge these ideas.

      • 1.Euthyphro is doing the right thing in prosecuting his father. We as people have morals, even if they are different based upon what we believe, they still must be consistent. We cannot say that it is ok to not at least take one murderer to court while another should be let go simply because of a familial relation. Euthyphro should make an emotional argument relating this person who was killed to any family member of another, and bring in the persuasive powers of religion in order to convince people to at least consider prosecuting his father for killing another human. While he may not be convicted, Euthyphro, based on his morals, is obligated to do everything in his power to make sure that a trial is still held, even if it is against his father.

      • Question 1:
        Euthyphro is facing a moral dilemma because he’s deciding whether or not to prosecute his father for causing the death of a day-laborer, who was a murderer. This is such a big dilemma for Euthyphro because he’s torn morally. Socrates prompted him with a question that made it more difficult, whether his actions or his fathers were less holy. Socrates challenges Euthyphro to think about morality and what it means to be holy, and if a man who is unholy is in a position to prosecute another man for being unholy.

        Personally, I think that it’s a tough choice, and Socrates raises some excellent points. Not only does Euthyphro have to worry about his family, and how he will look for prosecuting his father in the eyes of society, he has the gods to worry about. He makes the case that Zeus put his own father in bonds for similar reasons. Euthyphro is facing a dilemma between his family and his faith, and I think that the amount of faith he has, is what should ultimately drive his choice.

      • Euhtyphro an Athenian mantis, has presented a case at the Porch of King Archon, to prosecute his father for the murder of one of their day-laborers who was farming at Naxos. Euhtyphro’s morals as tested as he has the predicament to either protect his father or accuse him of the murder. Clearly in the dialogue it is seen that he proceeded to place charges against his father, as he thought it was the best for us as he was cleansing his father from his own sin, and himself as he knew of the occurrence. We can see Euhtyphro’s morals are very clear, and he is able to separate emotion from morality to act in the most unbiased and just manner.

      • 1. Euthyphro is debating on wether or not he should prosecute his father and I believe that he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Because the man that was killed was a murderer himself and the act was an accident, his father should go free. The idea that Euthyphro has to learn all about religious and holy things in order to make an educated decision is flawed because you base your decision in your moral values and the values that the church places in you. There is no place in the Bible with this exact circumstance, furthermore if you were going simply off of the ideas of what Jesus would do, he would want mercy to be shown on Euthyphro’s father and for him to not be prosecuted.

      • Question 1: Euthypro’s dilemma is a prime example of the difference between legality and morality. It is of course admirable to disregard personal biases and/or conflicts of interest in order to enact justice, as Euthypro is doing as he prosecutes his father. However, it is difficult to characterize Euthypro’s actions as purely moral, since his father will face a terrible punishment if he’s convicted and it is haunting to imagine a son betraying his father’s trust in this way. Not only is he directly harming his father by prosecuting him, the degree of the crime that his father committed is also in dispute. Euthypro’s father let a man die as a punishment for directly killing someone, which doesn’t necessarily constitute murder. For Euthypro to make such an extreme and harsh judgment of his father, as well as to actively work against his father’s wellbeing, is to place a very large amount of faith in his personal definition of holiness and justice. And as Socrates says, there is no sure way to define holiness, so Euthypro could very well be acting as an unholy man when he condemns his father to a wretched punishment for a morally gray crime. I certainly believe that Euthypro’s father should be prosecuted to some extent, but in my opinion it is immoral and unethical for Euthypro to actively work against his own father. I believe it would be best for another man to prosecute Euthypro’s father so he can avoid the terrible guilt and angst that might plague him if he personally destroys his father’s life.

      • Q1: Euthyphro faces a moral dilemma on whether or not he should prosecute his father for murdering a day-laborer. Socrates in his discussion with Euthyphro poses the question of what equates to holiness in the first place. Thus, pushing Euthyphro to question whether his actions against his dad and his dad’s actions are holy. If Euthyphro himself is not holy what gives him the authority to judge his father and prosecute him. I believe that Euthyphro should take some time to consider his own definitions of mortality, and holiness before judging someone else’s acts to prosecuting them. Obviously, I believe that murder is wrong and should be a punishable offense. However, if Euthyphro takes action without understanding the position he is in, he would be hypocritical. A man who is unholy to determine the holiness of another would be self-righteous.

      • 1. Should anyone discover that their father is a murderer, they would be justifiably shocked, no matter the circumstance. However, some might be less concerned if their father had murdered another murderer rather than an innocent person. In the case of Euthyphro, he was appalled by his father killing another man even though the man was a murderer himself. In fact, Euthyphro was so appalled that he decided to prosecute his dad at the King’s Porch. Given his predicament, Euthyphro upheld his moral stance that murder is wrong and unholy, no matter the circumstance, which is all the more reason to applaud his efforts. I agree that he should act on his beliefs, even at his own family’s expense, to preserve the correct notion of justice and the divine. Aside from the unique case of self-defense, murder is unjust, no matter who is on the receiving end. Therefore, Euthyphro is obligated to prosecute any murderer, including his father, to the full extent of the law.

      • 1. Euthyphro faces a moral dilemma because he needs to decide whether or not to prosecute his father for killing another person, However, there are several things that complicate this situation. The person that was killed was a day worker at the mines but was also a murderer. Other than this, he needs to define holiness so that he can see whether he is fit to prosecute or not. Euthyphro should ask the opinions of others to see if he should persecute his father. Personal relations can often skew these things whether you want to or not. If someone has done something wrong, he should always be persecuted, however, to what extent is what can be influenced.

      • I believe Euthyphro’s moral dilemma is a difficult one for his time and shows the strict division between being legally and morally correct. While for modern-day, it would seem like an easy and unanimous decision to prosecute any murderer, regardless if they were blood-related or not, during Ancient Greek society this was not the moral stance that was held. Prosecuting your own father is seen as taboo and in fact a heinous act due to the heavily patriarchal society they lived in where households were run by fathers and were supposed to be respected. However, personally, the murder that his father committed seems very much unjust, and Euthyphro cannot deny it. However, although I believe that Euthyphro would be making the right decision by following through with the prosecution, there is such gravity to this situation that I cannot personally understand. For one, because he is prosecuting his own father, his may not work out well in his favor, and in fact could get him in greater trouble. Additionally, because of the societal pressures that are held against relationships between children and their fathers, Euthyphro’s predicament of feeling eternally damned for ruining his father’s life is also considerably detrimental to this decision. Lastly, the victim was a murderer himself, and the murder committed by his father was an accident. Therefore, I believe these consequences are much more grave than the consequences he may face if he were to persecute his father, and therefore I believe Euthyphro should leave it be. However, that won’t mean that his father will face punishment later, I just don’t think it would be appropriate for Euthyphro to go through with this.

      • The moral predicament Euthyphro has to face is a difficult one. He prosecutes his father for murder because he believes it to be holy. However, there are many people close to him who believe his actions are irrational. This predicament causes Socrates to ask Euthyphro for a definition of holiness. There is of course no excuse for murder, even though the victim himself had committed the same crime. A person who takes the life of another, regardless of what the victim has done in the past, should be punished in some way. However, the question of whether or not Euthyphro’s actions are considered holy is still a factor in this scenario.

      • Question 1:

        Eurthyphro’s moral predicament is quite usual because he is neither defending his blood nor using the victim’s actions to justify his punishment. In theory, Euthyphro has understandable reasoning to not go against his father (note: not “support” his father, but merely not go against him in front of the state) given that (some people believe) family should support each other no matter what and that his father was punishing the victim on his violent acts against another. It should be recognized that Euthyphro acted on his own moral compass and not the pressures from others- he thought his fathers actions were wrong, he thinks murder in any form is wrong, and he wants to make that clear. However in my opinion, I would not have made the same choices Euthyphro did merely based on my moral compass. Although murder is illegal in all forms, if it was well justified and not an excuse to commit a violent act against another I support it. Like Euthyphro, I believe I would have the strength to follow my own beliefs and not conform to the social constructs of the state.

      • 1). I think Euthyphro is in a pretty rough situation, of course. I also greatly respect him for wanting to pursue legal action against his own farther. I think this is ultimately the right call; murder is not something that can simply be ignored. It is not a question of “justified or not” for, in my view, there is no such scenario besides self-defense where murder is justifiable (and this is not a case of self-defense). One piece of advice I would give to Euthyphro, however, would be to get the help of someone else to prosecute – someone with no connection to his father. If the defendant and plaintiff know each other, it can be very hard for them both to separate from that connection and focus strictly on the facts of the case; oftentimes, it can just lead to tense arguments of emotion. Additionally living with the fact that your father killed someone is already hard enough; I couldn’t imagine having to prosecute against them too. For Euthyphro’s own sake it might be better if someone else took charge of the case.

      • 1. If we don’t know the reason why Euthyphro’s father punished and “murdered” the labor, Euthyphro’s prosecutions of his father could be treated as a fair action. He himself would be considered as a justice man making judgments without being influenced by personal feelings. This kind of person could often make the right choice. It is definitely true that no one should ever murder anyone for any reason. Euthyphro observed his way of doing things. However, the truth is we know why Euthyphro’s father punished and “murdered” the labor: the labor killed another person after he got drunk. Complying with his own moral disciplines, Euthryphro showed sympathy with the one “murdered” by his father, ignoring the one who had been killed by the person with whom he had shown sympathy. In that case, Euthyphro, from my point of view, acted as a sanctimonious person. He thought he was a wise man with justice inside his heart. But choosing to ignore the essence of the event would not lead him to the answer of the problem facing him.

      • Question 1: In the dialogue, Euthyphro faces the predicament of whether or not to prosecute his father for murder. Everyone else believes this is ridiculous, because it is Euthyphro’s own father, and also because the man he murdered was a murderer himself. Additionally, Euthyphro believes this is the right thing to do as Zeus (the most revered of all the Greek gods) was allowed to imprison his father Kronos for swallowing his children; Euthyphro is simply acting in accordance with this and doing what he thinks is the holy thing to do. However, the people of Athens do not hold this same belief. My opinion on Euthyphro’s dilemma is that he is doing the right thing. Similar to Socrates, he is challenging the beliefs of his contemporaries by thinking that everyone should be held to a moral standard (in this case, what is holy), instead of saying that it was acceptable for his father to murder a murderer by means of neglect. As Socrates famously said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Euthyphro is, in a way, doing exactly that; he forgoes the standard practices of his society in order to hold his father accountable.

      • Question 1: Euthyphro is confident that he is acting holy and morally in persecuting his father until Socrates challenges his definition of what it means to be holy, infecting Euthyphro’s mind with insecurity about his choice. He appears to be convincing himself that he is just in his indictment by claiming that the gods would agree that his motion to convict his father is something of holy nature. He feels it is this way because of inherent immorality in the action of murder, thus his father was unholy while he is not acting with holiness. But even the murder itself is controversial in that it is somewhat indirect as there was no physical blow with the purpose of death, but there was malice intent, motivated negligence, and plain cruelty. That paired with others’ dismay that Euthyphro is convicting his own father, and the added ramblings of Socrates, doubt has crept into his mind concerning the indictment. I think that Euthyphro is a weak minded pushover, but of course he is just in prosecuting his father for basically murdering another man.

      • Euthyphro faces a moral predicament on whether or not he should prosecute his own father. His father was the cause of the day-laborer’s death. Euthyphro is put in such a predicament because he cannot make a decision. He does not want to include his emotional attachment to his father as a decision but uses logic instead. He comes to the decision to prosecute his father. He thinks this choice is correct because he feels like it will cleanse his father’s criminal actions. Based on Euthyphro’s actions it is shown that he can isolate his emotions to the situation to determine a correct consequence for his father.

      • Euthyphro’s moral predicament can be narrowed down to familial relationships versus higher truth. Since Euthyphro’s prompted with the decision to whether or not prosecute his father for his murder, he begins to contemplate the essence of morality and holiness where he asks Socrates that if it’s unholier for someone to prosecute their own father. In my opinion, it is normal to mix personal emotions into judging others especially if the culprit is your own father, however, it is still necessary to punish injustice and wrongdoings. Meanwhile, it is without a doubt that in situations like these, a close examination of what is truly just or unjust is needed to maintain one’s sanity. It is also important to compare and contrast one’s own morality with their faith to see if there’s any discrepancy between the two so that one can better understand him/herself.

      • 1. This moral predicament that Euthyphro is facing is on the grounds of whether it is morally correct to prosecute his dad. He is stuck and has to decide using his moral compass if he believes if his fathers actions: killing someone who was already a murder, was just or unjust.
        What complicates his decision making is when Socrates asks him “whether his actions or his fathers were less holy.”

        I believe that prosecuting his father was the right thing. My murdering a killer, his actions by default become just as bad as the killers. Plus that when making rational decision in the eyes of the law, it is important to disregard the emotional ties you may have when you are coming to your conclusion. Therefore I think he made the right decision.

      • The matter at hand seems to be one of complete legalist deontology versus one that incorporates more thought and consideration for unique cases. Generally, following orders and rules mindlessly is ill-advised, as it results in unjust or otherwise unfortunate outcomes. For this case in specific, Euthyphro’s father accidentally killed another man. This, and the degree to which this was an avoidable outcome should factor into his punishment. If, for example, Euthyphro’s father accidentally killed the man in an act of self-defense (which seems to be the case as the man he killed was a murderer), then in accordance to my own set of morals, he should not be prosecuted. Whether or not the murderer’s track record should be considered, is, too, dependent on the exact circumstances. However, what should not be considered is the convicted’s relationship to me (the prosecutor). Any tie between us would inevitably bias the result, (for better or for worse). For Euthyphro, though, there is no question that he should prosecute his own father. Euthyphro acts entirely in accordance with his own strict, deontological rules, in which his own personal relationships with others are irrelevant.

      • 2. Ancient Greeks placed a high value on family bonds. This is the fundamental reason Plato/Socrates considered Euthyphro to be a fool. Even in court, an accused man would most probably mention early in his speech (απόδειξη) his respect for his parents, as an indicator of his ethos. Thus, to a traditional, older figure in Ancient Greece, it would seem peculiar how one would publicly accuse a family member of being a murderer, especially when concerning the defense of a stranger. In particular, throughout his discussion with his interlocutor, Socrates states: “Was the man your father killed a relative? But, of course, he must have been-you would not be prosecuting him for murder in behalf of a stranger.” Socrates continues by challenging Euthyphro to consider, in accordance to the divine law, if he is the one committing a crime, by turning his own father in, this way. It is at that point, that his thoughts about Euthyphro become clearer, when Socrates treats his dialogist with irony by presenting a hypothetical dialogue between himself and Meletus in the court, based on Euthyphro’s assumptions that his profession (mantis) justifies his rooted opinion that his intentions are holy and right. Nonetheless, Plato/Socrates himself does not advise Euthyphro as to how he should act. This aimed to be the result of their dispute, and was to be based on the definition of what is in reality holy and what is unholy. As we have seen in both Plato’s Gorgias and in Abram’s “Spell of the Sensuous”, Socrates seeks to reach true knowledge and a deeper understanding of the situation, by asking his interlocutor a series of questions. This is the case in this dialogue as well. 
Socrates aims to unfold the complexity of such an issue regarding justice.

      • 2. Throughout the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates questions Euthyphro’s claims by implementing his Socratic dialect. In doing so, Socrates urges Euthyphro to answer his question of what is holy and unholy. He is repeatedly unsatisfied with Euthyphro’s replies as they contradict each other. It is clear that Socrates thinks Euthyphro is an ignorant fool for claiming to be a seer, an expert on religious issues, yet not being able to answer a simple question regarding piety. Instead of living by the belief that humans should blindly follow a religion, Socrates wants Euthyphro to understand that what is morally just to the gods should be just to others and these two reasonings should not contradict each other. Since Euthyphro is testifying against his father, his action is looked down upon by others around him, but he goes through with his decision because he believes it is religiously just. This contradictory behavior is what prompts Socrates to view Euthyphro as a fool because what is morally just should be religiously just, but Euthyphro cannot wrap his head around the idea that he should not just blindly follow what he believes is religiously acceptable. Socrates, therefore, wants Euthyphro to incorporate both religious and human morals into his decision, using them hand in hand to solidify whether or not he should testify against his father.

      • Euthyphro is supposedly held in high esteem as a religious expert or seer. Plato/Socrates finds it ironic, then, that he does not fully consider the religious meaning behind his moral conflict. Socrates purposefully asks Euthyphro to make a distinction between what is holy and what is unholy, to which Euthyphro replies that a holy thing is dear to the gods and unholy things hateful to the gods, and points out Zeus’ treatment of his own father. In a series of increasingly prodding questions, Socrates points out that, if the popular myths are true, the gods themselves can’t even decide what is holy and what is unholy; they have enemies and wars, and different gods find different things to be hateful and ungrateful. Consequently, Euthyphro is not prepared to make this decision based on the common sensus of justice. Socrates/Plato thinks that, before making any decision towards the fate of his father, he should delve deeper into what is just in this specific situation, as opposed blindly going with the grain.

      • 3.
        Socrates treats Euthyphro in a very similar way to how he treated Gorgias. He finds these men who believe that they are incredibly knowledgeable in a particular area, and he questions just how deep their knowledge truly is. Furthermore, both circumstances leave the interlocutor of Socrates very frustrated, mainly because Socrates constantly interrogates them in order to challenge their preconceived thoughts. In the end, neither situation ends with a solution or answer, but instead with even more questions. Naturally, this is how Socrates wishes to debate philosophy and politics, forcing his opponent to find answers that they had probably never even thought to consider; and inevitably, Socrates leads them to frustration with their inability to answer his lines of questioning with proper responses- which might lead them to deeply contemplate their positions and the reasons behind their decisions.

      • 3. In both of Plato’s dialogues, the interlocutors (Gorgias and Euthyphro) have an art in which they claim to be specialized in. For Gorgias, it is the art of rhetoric and for Euthyphro, he claims to be a mantis. And for both interlocutors, Socrates interrogates them with a multitude of questions derived from one purpose, to understand their perspective of what exactly it is it that they do. At the end of this interrogatory confrontation, Socrates concludes that both Gorgias and Euthyphro are not as well versed on their art as they had claimed.

        Well it seems that the main purpose of Socrates’ questioning is to get a deeper understanding of rhetoric and the art of mantis, it is all on the surface behind a bigger motive. For most of the dialogue, we can see that Socrates is trying to make his interlocutor feel like they know it all by complimenting on their extensive knowledge of their art. However, as we reach the ending, his interlocutor becomes less persistent with their answers and more confused on what they are saying themselves. This is when Socrates completely refutes the arguments of his interlocutor and enlightens them with his own views of their profession. In doing so, Socrates becomes the teacher and his interlocutor becomes the student.

      • 3.
        A clear similarity I see between the treatment of Gorgias and Euthyphro is the way Socrates questions Gorgias and Euthyphro about their perspective beliefs. Again, using the Socratic Dialect, Socrates questions Euthyphro on the definition of what is holy and unholy. Even though Euthyphro gives Socrates an answer to what is holy, Socrates is not satisfied with this answer and continues to dig at Euthyphro. This forces Euthyphro to dig a little deeper and look for answers and perspectives he never considered before. This, in turn, makes Euthyphro’s argument a little more complex because when talking back and forth with Socrates, he also learns how to explain his argument with new reasons and more intricate thoughts.

      • The similarities between Socrates’ treatment of Gorgias and Euthyphro are stark. Gorgias and Euthyphro both think their intellectual abilities are of a more supreme nature than the masses and Socrates essentially dismantles both of their lines of thinking in a very identical way. Of course, Socrates uses his very own Socratic method to repeatedly ask both men a flurry of questions to explain themselves, and the same thing happens in both situations. They both crumble. Many can claim to be an expert in a specific area of knowledge, and most won’t question it, but Socrates is always keen to know where the truth lies in terms of the level of their ‘expertness’. Euthyphro never provides a definitive answer to Socrates’ question regarding the difference between the “holy and unholy” in respect to the Gods, and results in Socrates saying, “are you not aware our account has gone round and come back to the same place?”. Socrates’ philosophical objective is clear and consistent from his treatment of Gorgias and now Euthyphro, he is keen to scrutinize and find out who are the true ‘experts’ and who truly has all the knowledge they proclaim to have.

      • 3. Socrates treats Georgias in a similar way he treats Euthyphro. Georgias and Euhtyphro start very confidently with their beliefs and their knowledge. However, as Socrates uses a Socratic method to question Euthyphro and Georgias, they start to lose their belief they started within the first place. Socrates in both cases does not straight up to reveal the answer to Georgias and Euthyphro, but instead, he guides them to find out the answer by themselves. He is simply there to guide them by asking complex and controversial questions. We can see that Georgias and Euthyphro are frustrated with Socrates because he is refuting all of their arguments. For example, when Euthyphro talks about his definition of holy and unholy, Socrates is not happy with his answer and starts questioning Euthyphro’s beliefs. After multiple, complex questions and disagreements, Euthyphro can dig deeper in understating Holy and Unholy with the help of Socrates’ guidance. Euthyphro and Georgias both are sort of persuaded by Socrates’ teaching. It is almost as if Socrates is the professor and Euthyphro and Georgias are the students.

      • 3. Socrates, similarly to Gorgias, uses Socratic Dialect to question Euthyphro and to deepen his understanding of their discussion: what is the holy and what is the unholy. In their conversation, Socrates poses numerous questions to interrogate Euthyphro, and believes Euthyphro’s answers to be unclear and contradicting. He is unsatisfied with Euthyphro’s thoughts and understanding of the concept of holy things, and urges Euthyphro to expand his idea and truly “examine what it is we are saying.” This technique is similar to Socrates and Gorgias’ dialogue as Socrates forces Euthyphro to separate himself from his thinking. By using this method, Socrates comes to the conclusion that Euthyphro, like Gorgias, does not have the complex knowledge of a seer he claims to possess. Ultimately, Socrates’ use of the Socratic Dialect truly dissects and picks apart his interlocutors’ critical thinking, and reveals their true understanding of their expertise in the arts.

      • In “ The Spell of the Sensuous” George Abrams defines Socratic Dialectic as “asking a speaker to explain what he has said (109). Given this definition of what Socratic dialectic is, we are able to draw comparisons between how Plato treats Gorgias and how Socrates treats Euthyphro. Both Plato and Socrates use seemingly simple questions to question Gorgias and Euthyphro. However, the purpose of these simple questions is to dive deeper into the arguments of both Gorgias and Euthyphro. Plato continuously asks Gorgias what rhetoric is, for his own understanding but to also learn what sets rhetoric apart from the other forms of art. Similarly, Socrates asks Euthyphro what is holy and unholy to help Euthyphro justify going against his father. Although this technique may seem redundant, it is important in helping both Gorgias and Euthyphro craft a strong argument. By asking these important questions, these philosophers are helping these men prepare for potential opposition. Gorgias is not used to being questioned, however if the opportunity arises, because of the questions asked by Plato, he will be able to accurately define what is rhetoric and how it is not like other popular forms of art. Likewise, it is important for Euthyphro to define what is holy and unholy in order to prove that what his father did was unholy and make a strong case against him.

      • 3. The way Socrates treats Euthyphro is very similar to the way he treats Gorgias in which he feigns ignorance and questions the opponent’s knowledge on their expertise. In the same manner that Socrates interrogates Gorgias, he also questions Euthyphro’s so-called mastery over all that is holy. Euthyphro is so holy and devout that he’s even able to persecute his own father for his wrongdoings. Socrates hearing about this decides to see for himself if this is true and poke holes in the ethics of Euthyphro. He does this in a similar manner to to his time with Gorgias, in which Socrates employs Socratic dialogue, and forces Euthyphro to define and defend his knowledge. However, to Euthyphro’s dismay, none of his answers seem to definitively satisfy Socrates as Socrates points out all the flaws and holes in his logic. I think the reason why Socrates does this is because Socrates or Plato is trying to show ethics isn’t as definitive as Euthyphro makes out to seem and rather, it can be confusing to navigate between what’s right and wrong.

      • Similarly to how Socrates treats Gorgias, he also applies the Socratic Method in his conversation with Euthyphryos. Just like how Gorgias seemed to be an “expert in rhetoric,” Euthyphryos seemed to know much about piety. In both scenarios, Socrates was not looking for specific examples of the respective topics. Still, more so looking to see if questioned enough, Gorgias and Euthyphryos can develop a clear and direct definition of either rhetoric or piety. As the conversations continue, the interlocutors eventually are not as confident as they originally were. After their loss of faith in their own argument, Socrates proceeds to humiliate them like when he says to Euthyphryus “As I said, you are lazy and soft because of your wealth of wisdom.” Both discussions end with more questions instead of answers.

      • 3. The biggest similarity between Gorgias and Euthyphro is the well-used tactic of questioning in order to prove a certain point. This occurred many times throughout both pieces of writing, nonetheless, Gorgias and Euthyphro answered using extremely similar language. Both characters practically answered every question with a simple yes or no, yet changed the way they answered every time. While Plato treated both characters identically, Plato’s use of rhetoric is clearly demonstrated throughout both passages and exhibits an established dynamic between characters. Socrates had been practicing this style of debate and found that it was the most effective and efficient method of questioning and obtaining information. Using this to his advantage, Socrates was able to question Gorgias and Euthyphro adequately.

      • Socrates approaches Euthyphro in a similar manner to how he spoke with Gorgias. He is very skeptical about Euthyphro’s claimed expertise in his field and proceeds to interrogate him using his esteemed Socratic method of repeated questioning. Like with Gorgias, Socrates is left feeling unimpressed with Euthyphro’s expertise and declares that he is not as much of an expert as he claims to be. I think Socrates socratic method is a good way to test someone’s perceived knowledge in a field, but it can sometimes seem unfair and that it solely aims to prove that someone is not an expert, because there is theoretically no end to the questioning until the questioner is satisfied with their result.

      • 3. Socrates’ treatment of Gorgias and Euthyphro were quite similar to one another. In both dialogues, Socratic Dialect was present. Throughout the conversations, Socrates constantly asked questions to develop and reveal either Gorgias or Euthyphro’s knowledge. Through the constant questioning, we can see Socrates desiring them to reveal their knowledge, however, from the dialogue we can also see that the interlocutors are frustrated. The interlocutors seem done with all the questions, yet when Socrates continues to ask questions they can only answer to the best of their abilities. In the end, while in the beginning it may appear that the interlocutors know what they were saying, by Socrates’s constant questioning, it appears that they are not as confident as they once were. It means that Socrates’s questions were designed to have the other party to truly think about their answers and develop their understanding to something that could be extraordinary.

      • 3. Socrates treats Euthyphro and Gorgias similarly during their conversations. In both dialogues, while he doesn’t fully reckon both their professions, Socrates would put himself in a place as a student and say he wants to learn from both Euthyphro and Gorgias who claim they are experts in certain areas. Then, he uses the Socratic method to question the expertise of Euthyphro and Gorgias and then to make the interlocutors actually reflect on their answers. By constantly throwing questions to both of the interlocutors, he is able to revive confirmed answers from them even though they would not admit it previously. Therefore, while it seems like he questions the interlocutors again and again in order to obtain information about a professional area, Socrates, step by step, challenges the ideas of his interlocutors.

      • 3. Socrates treats Gorgias and Euthyphro quite similarly in both of Plato’s dialogues, as he makes use of the Socratic Dialect, forcing them to rethink their previous ideas. While talking with Euthyphro, Socrates continually questions him, as Euthyphro believes that it is moral to prove his father guilty of murder. Socrates asks him about his specific beliefs, such as what is defined as holy or unholy, to try and get him to see the larger picture of this trial. It appears that Socrates is not only trying to deepen Euthyphro’s understanding of the topic at hand but is also attempting to convince him that his position is wrong. While on the surface the Socratic Dialect is meant to enhance someone’s understanding of a topic and broaden their oral vocabulary, there appears to be an underlying purpose of debate in terms of proving one’s point. In both Gorgias’ and Euthyphro’s dialects, Socrates does not agree with his converser’s point of view and although he may be enhancing their perspectives, he is also proving his own claim in the process. Hence, Socrates makes use of the Socratic Dialect by asking numerous questions in both of his philosophical conversations in order to not only advance the depth and breadth of the discussion but additionally to prove his argument.

      • 3. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphryo similarly depict Socrates’ style of reasoning and Socratic questioning that pushes his fellow interlocutor into further understanding. In his discussion with Gorgias, Socrates was debating with the famous rhetorician using dialectic questioning as a means to separate the ego from the problem. In this conversation with Euthyphyo, Socrates similarly pushes the religious seer to further question his morals and the correct choice between sentencing his father to death or sparing him for the sake of his family.

        “But in the name of Zeus, Euthyphro, do you think you yourself know so accurately how matters stand respecting divine law, and things holy and unholy, that with the facts as you declare you can prosecute your own father without fear that it is you, on the contrary, who are doing an unholy thing?” In this direct quote, Socrates is pushing the “wise” seer to truly question what is morally just. He even goes so far to assert that his immediate actions and decided mind without further consideration make him unholy. This toggle back and forth between aligning Euthyphyo’s actions with those of the gods only ends in more questions. However, this should be expected of such a complex situation, proving not all moral questions have the clearest answer. Through philosophical questioning, Socrates shows us that these situations require thought and ultimately sacrifice.

      • There is a clear and apparent similarity in the treatment of both Gorgias and Euthyphro. Both figures are well regraded in ancient Greek society; Gorgias being a renowned rhetorician who argues for the sake of arguing while Euthyphro is a seer and someone who acts in the way the gods would have wanted. In other words, Euthyphro was pious. They both were listened to and judged by the public, demanding rather compelling rhetorical skills and arguments. So, the parallel present between these two accounts is the prevalent Socratic method. The means in which Socrates/Plato engaged with both Gorgias and Euthyphro is through the proposal of questions and ultimate reflection on one’s words. The Socratic method allowed for both Gorgias and Euthyphro to conceptualize and go over their arguments and claims they were currently telling the people. Questions like “[w]hat is it?” in Plato’s “The Euthyphro” depict the Socratic method in action. These simple questions directed towards Euthyphro’s claims are what make the rather religiously rooted messages/argument of the prosecution of his father all more compelling. A deeper understanding of Euthyphro’s claim was discovered (just as it was concluded with Gorgia’s defense of Helen of Troy). As a result of the back and forth nature of the Socratic method, one’s argument is clear as can be because of the numerous ways the argument is viewed via the Socratic method.

      • It is to my understanding that Euthyphro is facing a very deep and philosophical dilemma in dissecting the role of morality and conscientiousness in our societies. He argues that independent of God and his commandments, humanity should have a standard of living and ethical compass. However, if it were to be that God commanded cruelty or wrong-doing, it is perceived His followers would oblige and carry out his will.

        These concepts present independent thinking and logic. Through theism, it is evident that followers and believers shape their livelihoods around the presented righteousness of the given faith. Understanding whether or not God’s wishes have a deeper and all-encompassing value or truth means one has to go back to the reality of humanity’s role — our moral compass or common sense.

        I believe Euthyphro is just in questioning whether or not what is deemed good by Christianity is innately virtuous. In my opinion, it is natural to question faith and its role in our lives. However, it is taught that we, as human beings, will never have the capacity to completely understand God and His omnipotence.

        As told by Saint Augustine while he was writing a book on the Trinity of Christianity: “he was walking by the seaside one day, meditating on the difficult problem of how God could be three Persons at once. He came upon a little child. The child had dug a little hole in the sand, and with a small spoon or seashell was scooping water from the sea into the small hole. Augustine watched him for a while and finally asked the child what he was doing. The child answered that he would scoop all the water from the sea and pour it into the little hole in the sand. ‘What?’ Augustine said. ‘That is impossible. Obviously, the sea is too large and the hole too small.’ ‘Indeed,’ said the child, ‘but I will sooner draw all the water from the sea and empty it into this hole than you will succeed in penetrating the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your limited understanding.’ Augustine turned away in amazement and when he looked back the child had disappeared.”

        https://www.medievalists.net/2.....augustine/

        This is how I personally conduct my faith. Although I will always try to understand and analyze God and how His power is present in our existence, I quickly realize that there will always be things to learn, and even sometimes, things I will be unable to completely fathom. But, I will always ask questions in an attempt to advance my knowledge of what it was that drove generations of people to follow the works of Christ and all that he stands for. I will always try to better understand how to be the best person and human I can be.

      • I am confused about when to use “Ibid” and when to use the shorter citation with the page number and author and title of work but no publishing info. I am also confused what goes where in a Chicago style paper.

      • 1) Does Ibid apply to any source? What does it mean?
        2) When and when not should we include publisher information? What makes a article or source obscure enough to put the publisher information?

      • Why is there a period and a comma after Ibid., p 57. on the practice test but on the graded quiz a question with the same format was only a period?

      • I don’t understand why number 3 on the practice quiz has the publisher information, but 5 does not. Is it because Life is very well known, or is it because it is an article?

      • For the graded test, the second question, I don’t get that why we should have “New York” in the parenthesis since the question doesn’t include the location at first.

      • If you are citing a source you have used previously in the essay, do you have to cite the entire thing again, or just put a simpler version of it? Or do you put something else entirely?

      • Why is there no comma after the Ibid example on the quiz when there was for the practice quiz (Ibid. p 93. vs Ibid., p 57)? What does Ibid stand for, and and when is an appropriate time to use it?

        Also, is there never a need to add a url when using Chicago format? And how/when do we add editors, publishers, etc. to the citation?

      • If I am citing a really long online article that doesn’t have page numbers, is there a more specific way to indicate where a quote is from other than paragraph or section titles?

      • When citing a source again later in your essay, do you always use the book title or the chapter title, or whichever is shorter?

      • Can you say “According to ___” or just not include the source depending on the type of source that you’re using?

      • Why do we not include urls for websites within our footnote? When I was looking at Chicago footnote examples and just formatting in general, urls were included.

      • When (if ever) will it be necessary to include the specific chapter/section of a source in your footnote (the container inside a container)? Is it similar to the way it’s determined via MLA format?

      • For sources without typical page numbers, how would you go about citing them? Would you simply try to break the work into sections and cite the specific section – such as dates in Columbus’s logs or tablets in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Is this just a matter of judgement?

      • I’m confused about when do we need to include parentheses when we are writing the footnotes? Do we specifically use the parenthesis to include the publisher’s information and the year?

      • In his first excerpt, Montaigne points to a story of King Pyrrhus when he underestimated the Romans and their army as barbarous; Montaigne says the lesson learned from this event is to not be quick to judge others from different cultures. By looking to the past at how old figures treated similar situations to his, Montaigne treats them as authorities on the subject.

      • Montaigne draws on an authority when he quotes the Roman poet Juvenal’s line “The Gascons once, ’tis said, their life renewed by eating of such food.” By doing this, Montaigne is able to draw attention to the act of cannibalism in Western society, thus creating a similarity between the two cultures.

      • Montaigne, when talking about the New World, draws on the authority figure Aristotle when he states, “‘The other testimony of antiquity with which some would connect this discovery is in Aristotle, at least if that little book Of Unheard-of Wonders is by him. He there relates that certain Carthaginians, after setting out upon the Atlantic Ocean from the Strait of Gibraltar and sailing a long time, at last, discovered a great fertile island, all clothed in woods and watered by great deep rivers, far remote from any mainland; and that they, and others since, attracted by the goodness and fertility of the soil, went there with their wives and children, and began to settle there.”

      • Montaigne relies on authority when he references Claudian’s quote, “It is no victory Unless the vanquished foe admits your mastery.” Montaigne uses Claudian’s quote to establish the idea that true victory is only achieved when the enemy admits their defeat to the victors.

      • Montaigne says in his essay “On Cannibals” that “it be thought that all this is done through a simple and servile bondage to usage and through the pressure of the authority of their ancient customs.” The authority in this case was the authority of old traditions and the compulsion/expected nature to follow in tradition in any sort of capacity.

      • Montaigne relies on authority when he references a well known and trusted source, the Bible, stating “In the Bible, Leah, Rachel, Sarah, and Jacob’s wives gave their beautiful handmaids to their husbands; and Livia seconded the appetites of Augustus, to her own disadvantage; and Stratonice, the wife of King Deiotarus, not only lent her husband for his use a very beautiful young chambermaid in her service, but carefully brought up her children, and backed them up to succeed to their father’s estates.” He utilizes information from the Bible to prove his point regarding how women would sacrifice their social lives for the benefit of their husbands, as many of his readers may follow the teachings of the Bible and therefore would look highly on Montaigne for mentioning the religious text.

      • On the last page, Montaigne draws on authority when he starts to talk about the bondage and pressure that authorities use in order to maintain control and “order” of their ancient customs. Pointing to a love song in which a man writes to a woman in which he states that he cannot give her his love due to the fact that she is “preferred to all other serpents.”

      • Montaigne addressed to authority of Plato’s telling to demonstate that it was quite possible that there was a flood that extremely changed earth’s environment, combined with aristotle’s words. By addressing to these two authorities, Montaigne shows us how to use evidence or reasoning to get information instead of popular say.

      • Montaigne draws upon authority when he writes how Nature is the primary source of all things pure, beautiful, and powerful, and how the “barbarous” people are actually more uncorrupted and “perfect” than civilized peoples because they are closer to a state of Nature. Nature acts as an authority in this instance, as Montaigne insinuates that all the pure simplicity of Indigenous people originates from the all-powerful, all-good force of Nature and that’s why they can be considered a great, unadulterated culture.

        • It’s true that some Renaissance thinkers spoke of the Book of Nature, as if the natural world were no less a revelation of God’s will than that holiest of books and highest authority, the Bible. Nonetheless, I’d classify any appeal to nature as an appeal to evidence, on the grounds that if nature isn’t evidence what is?

      • Montaigne relies on authorities when he addresses divination as god’s gift. By pointing this out he is drawing authority from God saying that since divination is a gift from god those who abuse the gift “should be punished for imposture”. The gift is special therefore those who try their best to handle the subject are excused from their mistakes but those who trick others should be given a punishment as they are misusing something given by authority, God.

        • I’d say, rather, that he appeals to authority when he supports his claim about divination by recounting an old story about the Scythians: “Divination is a gift of God; that is why its abuse should be punished as imposture. Among the Scythians, when the soothsayers failed to hit the mark, they were laid, chained hand and foot, on carts full of leather and drawn by oxen, on which they were burned”

      • Montaigne offers the experience of a captain who would lead about four or five thousand soldiers to battle and then return to his villages where they cleared paths to maximize his comfort. By showcasing this individual’s superior position among the Indigenous people, Montaigne implies that these are humans capable of forming more adept societies and social hierarchies than many give them credit for.

      • Montaigne quotes a line from Plato, “All our efforts cannot even succeed in reproducing the nest of the tiniest little bird, its contexture, its beauty and convenience; or even the web of the puny spider.” Montaigne draws on the authority when he wants to explain his own thought about between themselves and so-called “barbarians”.

      • Montaigne uses a song to show that his sister’s beauty is what everyone will love. “Besides the warlike song I have just quoted, I have another, a love song, which begins in this vein: “Adder, stay; stay, adder, that from the pattern of your coloring my sister may draw the fashion and the workmanship of a rich girdle that I may give to my love; so may your beauty and your pattern be forever preferred to all other serpents.”

        • Note that this is a song of the Amazonian tribe. I don’t think that counts as an authority, since it lacks the cultural weight of the Bible or a famous Greek or Roman author.

          But this consideration makes Montaigne’s reference to the poem all the more remarkable: he’s treating an unknown Amazonian poem as if it were an Ancient Greek poem.

      • Montaigne refers to authorities when he explains how most people will not tell something as it is, they will explain situations in the way they see them so that their judgment and reason will make sense to the listener. People want others to believe them and agree with them, therefore they do what they can to speak in a manner that pleasantly displays their point of view.

      • Montaigne relies on Authorities throughout his essay “Of Cannibals”. Specifically in the first excerpt, Montaigne references King Pyrrhus and his army showcasing Authority through military might from the get go. Montaigne quotes King Pyrrhus relaying this message: “I do not know what barbarians these are but the formation of this army that I see is not at all barbarous”. This message, along with the references to other mighty kings serves to illustrate the place authority has throughout time in the unification of different peoples under a single political structure/ruler.

      • One of the most fascinating quotes from Montaigne is, “I am afraid we have eyes bigger than our stomachs, and
        more curiosity than capacity. We embrace everything, but we clasp only wind.”. This quote is a clear example of the over-exuberance of people in real-life situations, which is perfectly personified by Montaigne here.

      • In his essay “On Cannibals”, Montaigne examines and ultimately discredits the popular view that Eureopeans are superior, both in intelligence and culture, to “barbarians” (natives of the New World). Montaigne draws on real-world experiences to repudiate this, specifically citing how the “barbarians” treat their prisoners of war with more humanity that Europeans do: “I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; and in tearing by tortures and the rack a body still full of feeling.”

      • Within Montaigne’s essay “Of cannibals”, he asserts that we cannot simply believe everything we hear and we must draw our conclusions from facts and evidence and not “popular say”. A moment where he uses evidence to prove this assertion is when he challenges the so-called discovery of Atlantis, in which he argues that based on what he knows and the facts that exists, “there is no great likelihood that that island was the new world which we have just discovered,”; highlighting how we must be prudent in our thinking when coming to a judgement

      • In his essay, Montaigne explores deeper into Harari’s idea of ignoramus in which humans condemned knowledge beyond what was written in scriptures. He examines the routine of the inhabitants as “They are still in the happy state of desiring only as much as their natural needs demand; anything beyond that is superfluous to them,” despite having the resources to expand their land.

      • In Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals,” he makes the argument that there is no true definition to barbarism by stating: “…from what I have been told…each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in.” In this section, Montaigne is drawing on evidence that is based on what he has seen and heard from others around him.

      • Montaigne’s essay “of Cannibals” asserted that the term barbarism is subjective; by looking through different perspectives, the defining term can change. While we may see other people as wild, without order, it can be said that “we have changed artificially and led astray from the common order, that we should rather call wild. “

      • One quote from Montaigne is “These nations, then, seem to me barbarous in this sense, that they have been fashioned very little by the human mind, and arc still very close to their original naturalness. The laws of nature still rule them, very little corrupted by ours; and they are in such a state of purity.” Montaigne argues that ignorance is bliss and that these people are not as barbaric as others make them seem.

      • Throughout his essay “On Cannibals”, Montaigne makes a statemnet that Barbarians or Natives as we know them are not as barbaric or savages as we tend to describe them. In his essay he says and I quote “They are close shaven all over, and shave themselves much more cleanly than we, with nothing but a wooden or stone razor.” Here Montaigne used evidence to strengthen his argument that natives in some cases were even more civilized than europeans.

      • In Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne discusses greatly on the idea of evidence and how any person can misconstrue evidence to fit a certain narrative. In this essay Montaigne states, “They never show you things as they are, but bend and disguise them according to the way they have seen them; and to give credence to their judgment and attract you to it, they are prone to add something to their matter, to stretch it out and amplify it.” This shows not only Montaigne’s reliance on evidence but also shows the consciousness and awareness Montaigne has towards using evidence — at least evidence solely based on anecdotes and witness.

      • When Montaigne says ” except that each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in”, he realizes that his people were merely judging the natives based on their own customs and what they knew and were used to and acknowledges that he first saw them as barbarous because of how close they lived to their original wildness.

      • I believe that Montaigne relies more on evidence than on authority. However, he addresses that evidence can also mislead people. People misuse certain evidence to support their claim. Their goals are to get people on their side, so they can sort of manipulate evidence to fit in their argument.

      • In Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals”, specifically on pages 186 to 187, he deeply describes a culture that would be considered barbarous by those who perceive order as superior to naturalness, but his detailed evidence works to challenge this notion. He writes of their climate, shelter, entertainment, diet, and much more, only to draw upon similarities between objects of modern day that we owe to these past cultures instead of highlighting wild differences that this subjectively barbaric culture has.

      • In his attempts to discredit the widely held notion that Europeans are far superior when compared to the indigenous “barbarians” of the New World, Montaigne relies on a plethora of cultural examples that reveal the hypocrisies of this superiority complex. For example, Montaigne states, “So we may well call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity” when recalling how the European’s brutally torture their prisoners publicly for the sake of vengeance.

      • Montaigne presents contradicting passages from ancient authorities, and examines them closely, as he tries to reach a better understanding of his topic of choice, discover and explore further ideas while his thinking unfolds as he writes. However, like many other figures affected by the Renaissance, Montaigne seeks to diverge from the absolute trust in authorities, experience the world around him, and rely on empirical evidence to find true knowledge.

      • In Montaigne’s essay “Of cannibals”, the reliance on evidence seems to go hand and hand with authority. Montaigne remarks “Each man brings back as his trophy the head of the enemy he has killed”. It’s an example of how the evidence—in this case the prisoner’s head— is almost used to obtain authority such that it can help one gain respect from others. Therefore in efforts to obtain authority one must need some kind of evidence to prove their worthiness for it.

      • Montaigne, in his essay, “Of cannibals,” is more dependant upon Evidence through natural life and existence to further explain any conceptual claims. He supports the notion that human beings grasp facts and knowledge that is beyond what is written and have the capacity to think naturally independently.

      • In Montaigne’s essay “On Cannibals,” the author relies on evidence and authority working together in order to further his examinations and unravel his thoughts. Montaigne acknowledges the sense of caution in trusting authorities, and uses evidence to establish accuracy.

      • As displayed in his essay, Montaigne depends more on evidence for his reasoning as seen through pure thoughts rather than any type of superior claim. He unintentionally uses more of this technique because he is confident in his thinkings to the point where he does not need other forms of persuasion to convince his listeners.

      • In his essay “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne relies on authority and evidence in his examination of different groups of people. The uses of authority and evidence go hand in hand because the evidence he’s referencing doesn’t come directly from Montaigne but from other people’s accounts.

      • Montaigne relies nicely on a balance between authority and evidence. For example, he draws from authoritative figures like Aristotle and evidence like saying each man thinks things that are not his own practice are barbaric.

      • Montaigne leans much more heavily on evidence and empirically based observations than on authority in his work “Of Cannibals”. He speaks a great deal of the natural world and the way it compares to the artificial one created in the Europe of his time, and makes his points based off of his own opinions and views built off of observations of these two worlds.

      • In Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals” he appears to rely more on evidence than authority throughout the reading. This does not mean he pushes reasoning through authority to the side entirely however, as he frequently brings up authority figures to boost his arguments ethos points and total strength.

      • While Montaigne utilizes both “Authorities” and “Evidence” to get his points across, it seems that he relies a little more on Evidence based reasoning. The evidence Montaigne uses in his essay “Of Cannibals” heavily incorporates his own opinions and observations within the natural world.

      • In Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals,” he incorporates both the usage of authority and evidence to push forth his argument. Although authority is relied on consistently throughout his essay such as bringing up God or Aristotle, he seems to rely more on concrete evidence by applying his observations on the real world to further strengthen his claims.

      • Montaigne relies more on evidence than authority in his analysis, as he seems to base his beliefs on his own observations.

      • In Montaigne’s essay “On Cannibals”, he relies more on evidence while he employs both evidence and authorities for reasoning. Montaigne seems to present his ideas through his thoughts and observations rather than simply granting full trust to authorities.

      • Montaigne’s essay is dependent more on evidence rather than authority for the reason that he constantly introduces examples of barbarism in the context of different cultural backgrounds to prove his points. It is noteworthy that authority also plays a big part in proving his point but it is not as abundant as shown in the passage.

      • Montaigne utilizes many of the key factors that Hall attributes as important to an essay including an open ending, the reevaluation of preconceived ideas, and a level of trying to show his readers how he connects his ideas. Hall often references Montaigne, and even specifically references “Of Cannibals” to exhibit the idea that these essays connect to the current world to bring about new ideas, or to change existing ideas.

      • In Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals”, he portrays many of the themes and concepts that Hall expressed throughout his explanation of the essay, including Hall’s description of essays as an “examination of conventional wisdom” and “exploration of received opinion” as he uses this writing to record his thoughts, almost as some of them concurrently develop in his mind. He freely discusses and inspects human nature, allowing him to explain his views exploratively, without truly reaching a final synthesis, yet still posing deep inquiries about the actions and preconceived ideas of humans in his modern world.

      • Montaigne begins his essay ‘Of Cannibals’ by placing the reader in an exact moment in history, orienting the audience to feel personally attached and involved in the context he is setting up for his work, differing from Bacon who begins ‘The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral’ with a theoretical statement. Bacon’s writing continues on this theoretical path, whereas Montaigne speaks of specific figures and events that would have been fairly common knowledge at the time, making his work much more intellectually accessible and applicable.

      • Montaigne writes an essay that contains a number of the characteristics of an essay that Hall writes about. He repeatedly reiterates his past claims and makes certain claims without reaching a single conclusion, leaving his arguments up for discussion.

      • “I was raised in an evangelical home, went to an evangelical church and high school, and began following Christ as a teen.”

        Gerson dedicates the first part of his article to a strong criticism of American Evangelicals. He bespatters the Evangelical “Trump loyalists” as hypocritical, shortsighted, and corrupt, and does so by exposing the concerning remarks of no less than seven Evangelical preachers in the first quarter of his article alone. It is all the more shocking, then, when Gerson labels himself as a Christian, and specifically notes how he grew up in an Evangelical household and chose and Evangelical college. This significant change in tone is deliberate and shocking to the reader, making them all the more interested in what Gerson has to say. It also qualifies him as an authority on the topic, having a personal connection to the Church.

      • “His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ. Blessed are the proud. Blessed are the ruthless. Blessed are the shameless. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame.”

        Gerson raised a style for Trump. By listing some chiristian values and making contrast with Trump’s style, he leads us to a conclusion that Trump is far away from chirstianity. After cleaning our misunderstanding, he gives us the answer: a nietsche style.

      • “Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching.”

        Gerson’s mention of his Christian upbringing and severe criticism of other Evangelical Christians is rather surprising and unexpected to the reader. Through mentioning the means and deeds of Trump’s campaign and presidency, Gerson is constantly proving to the reader that these “achievements” and the means in which they were achieved (if achieved at all) were not done for/ in the way of Christianity. Rather, Gerson is suggesting that these acts are falling more and more out of line with the Evangelical ideals Trump claims to be supporting. Gerson is also illustrating the blind loyalty majority of white Evangelical Christians to Trump despite the failure of Trump embodying Christianity himself as a result of his fame and success.

      • “Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage.”

        This surprised me because I would think in a piece like this the use of all of these parenthesis and crass language would make this seem more like propaganda than a scholarly piece. However, this specific technique does bring the readers in, the purpose of this is to surprise the readers and shock them into waning to read more. This will encourage the readers to want to learn more about why this had become acceptable and more willing to learn the history and explore the relationship it has with evangelicals.

        • This particularly surprised me as well because Trump’s flip flopping political views never made his followers sway. Despite the fact that parents have daughters- they still unequivocally supported him despite his gross commentary towards women. Despite him once supporting partial-birth abortions- the ultra-religious still had no issue giving him their full support. Gerson does a wonderful job bringing that to the readers attention and highlighting the utter chaos that Trump led one of the most powerful countries in the world with.

      • “But when the candidate talked of an America in decline and headed toward destruction, which could be returned to greatness only by recovering the certainties of the past, he was strumming resonant chords of evangelical conviction.
        Trump consistently depicts evangelicals as they depict themselves: a mistreated minority, in need of a defender who plays by worldly rules.”

        This moment stuck out to me because it encapsulates how Trump (who is somewhat antithetical to traditional Christian values) managed to appeal to the evangelical audience, by essentially telling them that they were, in a sense, persecuted (which happens to many Biblical figures). Additionally, Gerson labeling Trump as a “defender” using “worldly rules” implies that evangelicals turned to Trump because he could act in a way that Christians normally could not.

      • “On Capitol Hill, I found many evangelical partners in trying to define a “compassionate conservatism.” And as a policy adviser and the chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush, I saw how evangelical leaders such as Rick and Kay Warren could be principled, tireless advocates in the global fight against aids.”

        In this section, Gerson is describing how evangelicals have changed not only their political stance but what they’re willing to accept from politicians that they elect. I found this to be very interesting and somewhat surprising, because of how much evangelicals have changed politically in my own lifetime. Gerson in this section describes some of Trump’s worst, least-Christian actions, which evangelicals can defend, and compares it to the things that evangelicals would have been accepting of 20 years ago.

      • “His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ.”

        Frankly, what struck me as most interesting was Gerson’s take on Christian values, the idea that they are in fact based on the idea of “love.” The idea of Christianity is pure, to spread love to all, but these morals rarely seem to be put into action. Of course, a few do not represent the majority, however there have been multiple occasions where Christians have shamed people in the LGBTQ+ community based on their sexual orientation and women’s rights have been ignored. The Republican Party has also supported these types of injustices and with Gerson’s reasoning, these actions do not align with their values either. By making these bold statements Gerson seems to be luring his audience in with simple word choice to ensure everyone in the audience can feel included.

      • “The President’s Emergency Plan for aids Relief (pepfar)—the largest initiative by a nation in history to fight a single disease—emerged in part from a sense of moral obligation informed by George W. Bush’s evangelical faith. In explaining and defending the program, Bush made constant reference to Luke 12:48: “To whom much is given, much is required.””
        It is interesting to hear about a Christian president using their faith to justify humanitarian aid to foreign countries, since unfortunately now most overtly Christian, Republican politicians only seem to care about culture-war issues, like gay marriage or secularization. To hear a Christian politicians use quotes from his Holy Book to justify spending tax dollars on helping poor, primarily Black people fight a deadly disease is a far-cry from what Christian politicians now justify with their religion. It shouldn’t be surprising to hear that the Bible can be used to warrant preferential treatment towards the poor or helping the least of these, but because of the way evangelicals now represent their faith, it certainly was to me.

      • “Evangelicalism was largely identical to mainstream Protestantism. Evangelicals varied widely in their denominational beliefs, but they uniformly agreed about the need for a personal decision to accept God’s grace through faith in Christ.”
        This quote extracted from Gersons, The Last Temptation surprised me because I always thought of Evangelicalism and Protestantism as two different sects of the protestant movement. Such that both agree on what defines salvation and grace.

      • “So it is little wonder that last year the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, an 87-year-old ministry, dropped the ‘E word’ from its name, becoming the Princeton Christian Fellowship: Too many students had identified the term with conservative political ideology.”

        Before reading this article, I was under the impression that most evangelical organizations took pride in their largely conservative beliefs. Therefore, I was surprised to learn that ministries have recognized this assumption connecting their religion to a political stance and taken action to dissociate themselves from it. This change is actually somewhat promising from my perspective, as religion should not play a big role in politics.

      • “Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching. His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ.”
        The author Gerson is writing about how contradicted it is between what Trump actually has done and what his Christian supporters believe in. Such contradiction portrays an ironic scene, in which those Christians are supporting a man with totally different values from their own. People choose to ignore those things like they have never taken place before.

      • “I was raised in an evangelical home, went to an evangelical church and high school, and began following Christ as a teen. After attending Georgetown University for a year, I transferred to Wheaton College in Illinois—sometimes called “the Harvard of evangelical Protestantism”—where I studied theology. I worked at an evangelical nonprofit, Prison Fellowship, before becoming a staffer for Senator Dan Coats of Indiana (a fellow Wheaton alum). On Capitol Hill, I found many evangelical partners in trying to define a “compassionate conservatism.” And as a policy adviser and the chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush, I saw how evangelical leaders such as Rick and Kay Warren could be principled, tireless advocates in the global fight against aids.”

        This quote surprised me because it was the first time the author used first person in this article. He supports his claims by revealing his own experiences with the word “evangelical.” This gives him credibility to use the word and makes him more believable to the reader.

      • “These are religious leaders who have spent their entire adult lives bemoaning cultural and moral decay. Yet they publicly backed a candidate who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including with a 14-year-old girl.”

        The juxtaposition between the traditional practices of Evangelicals and the actions of Trump is particularly eye opening. Gerson addresses their extreme differences to criticize Evangelical leaders and their desperation for a platform in which they are willing to form an alliance with someone who displays “non-Christian substance” and is the complete opposite in everything that they believe in.

      • “Still, I believed that the old evangelical model of social engagement was exhausted, and that something more positive and principled was in the offing. I was wrong. In fact, evangelicals would prove highly vulnerable to a message of resentful, declinist populism. Donald Trump could almost have been echoing the apocalyptic warnings of Metaxas and Graham when he declared, ‘Our country’s going to hell.’ Or: ‘We haven’t seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.’ Given Trump’s general level of religious knowledge, he likely had no idea that he was adapting premillennialism to populism. But when the candidate talked of an America in decline and headed toward destruction, which could be returned to greatness only by recovering the certainties of the past, he was strumming resonant chords of evangelical conviction.” Here, Gerson starts with something he believed should be the case, with an optimistic view, but replies that he was wrong. Other engaging factors of this quote is the language talking about “apocalyptic language” and how America is headed to “decline and destruction”. One other part that caught my attention is where it said, “evangelicals would prove highly vulnerable to a message of resentful, declinist populism.” this was because it was a claim that he would give evidence for later.

      • “His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love… And yet, a credible case can be made that evangelical votes were a decisive factor in Trump’s improbable victory”.

      • “But their resistance was futile, for one incontrovertible reason: Evolution is a fact. It is objectively true based on overwhelming evidence. By denying this, evangelicals made their entire view of reality suspect. They were insisting, in effect, that the Christian faith requires a flight from reason.”

      • “..more than half of churchgoing Christian teens believe that the church seems to reject much of what science tells us about the world.” Ironically, it is this attitude that has led to less religious affiliation, especially in younger ages.

        • I agree. This aspect of faith pushes faithful parishioners away from the church. Younger generations have found themselves questioning the legitimacy of God and His role in our existence.

      • “The evangelical political agenda, moreover, has been narrowed by its supremely reactive nature. Rather than choosing their own agendas, evangelicals have been pulled into a series of social and political debates started by others.”

      • “If you want to call yourself pro-life on abortion, then you have to oppose the dehumanization of migrants. If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism. If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care. And vice versa.”

      • “These are religious leaders who have spent their entire adult lives bemoaning cultural and moral decay. Yet they publicly backed a candidate who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including with a 14-year-old girl.”

        • I also found this quote surprising. In writing this, Gerson provides a contrast between what these “religious leaders” have been preaching their entire lives, and what they tolerate when it comes to President Trump. The very ending line is also incredibly striking, as he brings up a specific situation, and moreover, a situation that includes a child! This is something that should most definitely go against these leaders’ beliefs, yet they turned a blind eye to it when backing Trump.

      • “One can only imagine the explosion of outrage if President Barack Obama had been credibly accused of similar offenses.”

      • “And while religious people do believe that sexual ethics are important, the nature of contemporary religious engagement creates a misimpression about just how important they are relative to other crucial issues.”

      • “It is the story of how an influential and culturally confident religious movement became a marginalized and anxious minority seeking political protection under the wing of a man such as Trump, the least traditionally Christian figure—in temperament, behavior, and evident belief—to assume the presidency in living memory.”

      • “The single largest religious demographic in the United States—representing about half the Republican political coalition—sees itself as a besieged and disrespected minority.”

      • “They also make seeing the defilement of that word all the more painful. The corruption of a political party is regrettable. The corruption of a religious tradition by politics is tragic, shaming those who participate in it.”

      • “Pastor David Jeremiah has compared Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump to Joseph and Mary: ‘It’s just like God to use a young Jewish couple to help Christians.’ According to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have ‘found their dream president,’ which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.”

      • “Politics in a democracy is essentially anti-apocalyptic, premised on the idea that an active citizenry is capable of improving the nation. But if we’re already mere minutes from the midnight hour, then what is the point? The normal avenues of political reform are useless.”

      • Attachment

        Tom Slader, “Unsafe Space, the Crisis of Free Speech on Campus” 2016.

        This book is about the interpretation of Free Speech and, more specifically, the impact it has on college campuses. I want to read it because it may conceptualize some aspects of Cancel Culture and show how it has affected academic life for us as college students.

      • Attachment

        Darron W. Dixon-Hardy, Beverley A.Curran, “Types of packaging waste from secondary sources (supermarkets) – The situation in the UK,” 2008.

        Although this is not a book, it’s almost exactly what I am looking for. This article explains the different forms of waste from supermarkets and the supply chain. This is a great fundamental background and argument source.

      • Attachment

        This book is about the discrimination that Asian Americans experienced in the South during the rise of the Jim Crow laws. The author provides detailed insights, sources, and records.

      • Attachment

        Attachment
        Black Lives Matter: from a moment to a movement, Hillstrom, Laurie Collier, 2018

        This book is about the BLM movement and the impact it made so far. This would be a great read because I can use this to explore the good that has come out of cancel culture.

      • Attachment

        Marisa Abrajano and Zoltan L. Hajnal, “White Backlash”, 2015

        This book focuses on not only the impact that immigration has on American society, but also the reactions that native American citizens have to these impacts. This is perfect for helping grow my understanding of people’s responses to immigration, especially over time.

      • Attachment

        This book is about bringing attention to how young people take in information from social media and how it can have effects on our democracy. This book explores the misinformation filled landscape of social media.

        Julian McDougall, Fake News vs Media Studies: Travels in a False Binary

      • Melzer, Scott. Gun Crusaders : The NRA’s Culture War. New York: New York University Press, 2009.
        “From my cold, dead hands!”shouted Charlton Heston. The audience roared its approval for their President and charismatic leader. Heston was the only person defiantly holding a rifle over his head, but, as I scanned the room, everyone appeared ready to take up arms in the gun wars. Forty thousand strong attended the 2002 National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting in Reno, Nevada. They came for the guns. To hold them, talk about them, celebrate them, and, most important, defend them. Unlike millions of other gun owners, the NRA and its faithful members believe that “gun rights” are under attack.
        https://docs.google.com/docume.....sp=sharing

      • Attachment

        This book is about economics, then how Reaganomics came to be, what the effects of it were, and what future U.S. leaders did about it, if they kept it the same, modified it, or got rid of it completely.

      • Attachment

        Dalia Abdelhady, The Lebanese Diaspora: The Arab Immigrant Experience in Montreal, New York, and Paris, 2011

        This book will give clear insight as to the migration patterns of Lebanon and how the diaspora has affected the nation. This book includes real accounts of immigrants and their stories.

        https://docs.google.com/docume.....sp=sharing

      • Attachment

        Archie Brown, “The Rise and Fall of Communism,” published by HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.

        I’m interested in reading this book, as it will provide an overview of the historical context of why communism was both appealing for the political climate in Russia at the time of it’s inception, and ultimately why it failed.

      • Attachment

        Scull, Andrew. Madness in Civilization, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
        This book encompasses the history of mental illness stigma and the evolution of its treatments. Though it does not go too deep into detail on a few aspects I am choosing to focus on, its breadth covers a lot of historical context.

      • “Blinded by political tribalism and hatred for their political opponents, these leaders can’t see how they are undermining the causes to which they once dedicated their lives.”

      • “These are religious leaders who have spent their entire adult lives bemoaning cultural and moral decay. Yet they publicly backed a candidate who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including with a 14-year-old girl.”

      • “The single largest religious demographic in the United States—representing about half the Republican political coalition—sees itself as a besieged and disrespected minority. In this way, evangelicals have become simultaneously more engaged and more alienated.”

      • “In the mid-19th century, evangelicalism was the predominant religious tradition in America—a faith assured of its social position, confident in its divine calling, welcoming of progress, and hopeful about the future. Fifty years later, it was losing intellectual and social ground on every front. Twenty-five years beyond that, it had become a national joke.”

      • “Those experiences make me hesitant to abandon the word evangelical. They also make seeing the defilement of that word all the more painful. The corruption of a political party is regrettable. The corruption of a religious tradition by politics is tragic, shaming those who participate in it.”

      • “Evolution is a fact. It is objectively true based on overwhelming evidence. By denying this, evangelicals made their entire view of reality suspect. They were insisting, in effect, that the Christian faith requires a flight from reason”

      • “The moral convictions of many evangelical leaders have become a function of their partisan identification. This is not mere gullibility; it is utter corruption.”

      • “If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism. If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care. And vice versa.”

      • “The country, meanwhile, was becoming less secular and more welcoming of religious influence. (In 1920, church membership in the United States was 43 percent. By 1960, it was 63 percent.)”

      • As the prominent evangelical pastor Tim Keller—who is not a Trump loyalist—recently wrote in The New Yorker, “ ‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite.’ ”

      • “Fox News and talk radio are vastly greater influences on evangelicals’ political identity than formal statements by religious denominations or from the National Association of Evangelicals. In this Christian political movement, Christian theology is emphatically not the primary motivating factor.”

      • “They believed that the final millennium of human history would be a time of peace for the world and of expansion for the Christian Church, culminating in the Second Coming of Christ. As such, they were an optimistic lot who thought that human effort could help hasten the arrival of this promised era—a belief that encouraged both social activism and global missionary activity.”

      • “In practice, this acts as an “if, then” requirement for Catholics, splendidly complicating their politics: If you want to call yourself pro-life on abortion, then you have to oppose the dehumanization of migrants. If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism. If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care. And vice versa. The doctrinal whole requires a broad, consistent view of justice, which—when it is faithfully applied—cuts across the categories and clichés of American politics. Of course, American Catholics routinely ignore Catholic social thought.”

      • My alma mater, Wheaton College, was founded by abolitionist evangelicals in 1860 under the leadership of Jonathan Blanchard, an emblematic figure in mid-19th-century Northern evangelicalism. Blanchard was part of a generation of radical malcontents produced by the Second Great Awakening, a religious revival that had touched millions of American lives in the first half of the 19th century.

      • “I was raised in an evangelical home, went to an evangelical church and high school, and began following Christ as a teen. After attending Georgetown University for a year, I transferred to Wheaton College in Illinois—sometimes called “the Harvard of evangelical Protestantism”—where I studied theology.”

      • “Moreover, in making their case on cultural decay and decline, evangelicals have, in some highly visible cases, chosen the wrong nightmares. Most notable, they made a crucial error in picking evolution as a main point of contention with modernity. ‘The contest between evolution and Christianity is a duel to the death,’ William Jennings Bryan argued.”

      • Attachment

        Racial Paranoia by John L. Jackson.
        It’s a book about the consequences of political correctness and how race dynamics in today’s world lead to a creeping feeling of racial paranoia. Furthermore, it also discusses how we can combat underlying racial problems that hide behind politically correct surfaces.

      • Attachment

        The novel, Outer Space and Popular Culture: Influences and Interrelations, appears to be discussing the impacts of space exploration on American culture, specifically touching on movies, magazines, and propaganda. Additionally, it delves into changes targeted towards the youth, such as alterations in education and playground equipment, in hopes to inspire a future generation of space explorers.

      • Attachment

        Imperial Ambitions by Noam Chomsky. The book is an organized collection of interviews with David Barsamian. The questions themselves are about American foreign policy with a focus on the post-9/11 era.

      • Attachment

        Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness by Peter Conrad and Joseph W. Schneider

        This book is an examination of the history of the way mental illness has been treated in society dating as far back as from during the biblical era up until the time this book had been written in 1992. From the authors’ examinations they come to the conclusion how what was once saw as “madness” has gradually overtime become seen as an illness, and they make an attempt to explore why that happens.

      • Attachment  Screenshot.pdf

        25 Events That Shaped Asian American History: an Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic by Lang Dong
        This book tells us the key events of Asian Americans in a chronological order and allows readers to have a glance of the controversies existing in Asian American history. By listing a series of important events of Asian Americans and link them together with other national events, the author Dong appears to examine the impact and involvement of Asian Americans.

      • Attachment

        Feminist Theory Today: An introduction to Second-Wave Feminism
        This novel delves into the changes which occurred in socialist feminism from its origins to the current day focus. It provides a unique examination of feminist political thoughts through the archives of the modern feminist theory. I am interested in this novel because of the deeper analysis and critique of the beginnings of the second wave of feminism.

      • Attachment

        Why They Do It: Inside the Mind of the White-Collar Criminal by Eugene Soltes.

        By introducing to the readers well-known white-collar criminals like Bernie Madoff, this book investigates the reasons which lead people to conduct financial crimes despite acknowledging that they will be destroying their already successful careers. In my opinion, in the book, Soltes manages to take the first step in identifying ways to prevent white-collar crime, which is increasingly observed today.

      • Attachment

        The Sparrow and the Hawk by Kyle Longley.

        This book examines the intervention by the United States and it’s intelligence apparatus into Costa Rica on behalf of capital interests in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The United States has remained involved since, and the country has yet to recover from the damage dealt to it by the neoliberal American interests during the Cold War.

      • Attachment

        Madeline Y. Hsu, in her book The Good Immigrants: How the Yellow Peril Became the Model Minority, explores the shift from “yellow peril” to “model minority” by examining the immigration laws and political and cultural relations between US and China. She includes many personal stories from individuals which I find personally interesting to read, especially since it’s through the eyes of someone who experienced first-hand the discrimination in the time period.

      • Attachment

        The Great Han: Race, Nationalism, and Tradition in China Today, 2017 by Kevin Carrico. This book seems to explore the origin of nationalism in China, which can be tied to my research topic in Chinese racism towards other minority groups. The book tries to explain why xenophobia is prevalent in China and where do these hatreds and prejudices truly stem from.

      • Attachment

        5 Grams: Crack Cocaine, Rap Music, and the War on Drugs by Dimitri Bogazianos
        This book is about how the war on drugs, specifically crack, has impacted the rap game and impacted lyrics specifically. I am interested to read this book because music is something that interests me and I am excited to learn more about the history of one of my favorite genres of music.

      • Attachment

        Jo B. Paoletti, Sex and Unisex: Fashion, Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution, 2015

        This book discusses the sexual revolution of the 60s through analyzing the qualities of gender, most notably fashion. It seems to be a perfect source for my research as it describes trends throughout the decade and even includes excerpts from magazines or newspapers at the time.

      • Editted Version:
        Suzman first uses his story with Dog to point out that the Ju/’hoansi don’t seem to have sympathy towards animals, which makes him angry. Then he explains the possible reason behind it: His affection is from the neolithic revolution which tends to treat dogs as part of a family. However, the Ju/’hoansi are hunter-gatherers which doesn’t emphasize sympathy on non-human animals. It’s because the Ju/’hoansi are hunter-gatherers. The only thing they need to do is to find ways to predict and hunt their preys better. Consequently, they don’t have the obligation and the responsibility to take care of the dogs which doesn’t give them any advantage. They don’t need the help of dogs. However, unlike hunter-gatherers, people under the great impact of neolithic revolution do need the help of dogs, and dogs are thus exploited for their human-like traits. Gradually dogs are adopted by people and are treated as one part of the family. Sympathy for dogs starts from that. The difference of attitude towards animals is because the different environment of ancestors, and this difference gets inherited.

      • Suzman uses Dog’s story to depict the Ju/’hoansi people’s hostile and impassive relationship with animals. Dog’s story illustrates the affection-craving dogs of the Skooheid village who are unloved and quake in fear of the Ju/’hoansi as they are left to fend for themselves. The Ju/’hoansi, the direct descendants of the hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari, are still indeed hunter-gathers explaining their lack of interest and sympathy towards the dogs and animals. To hunter-gatherers, animals were unworthy of giving empathy to; they were merely their food source and means of survival. In fact, it was not until the Neolithic Revolution where the domestication of the wolf occurred; the dog insinuated itself into the daily lives of humans forming this still presently strong mutualistic symbiotic relationship as exhibited by Suzman and Dog. So, empathy for animals is attributed to the evolution of humans from hunting and gathering to settlement and agriculture.

      • James Suzman shares juxtaposes western ideology with that of the Ju/’hoansi by examining how this culture treats animals many societies value as companions. Suzman befriends a dog, feeding him and giving him attention secretly, since the Ju/’hoansi find this behavior bizarre. Dogs in the village belong to individuals, but they do not feed them or care for them like Suzman thinks is customary and just. After village children harm Dog with industrial acid, leading to his death, Kaice (Suzman’s friend) explains to him how the Ju/’hoansi view the relationship between human and animal. He asserts that to be able to hunt animals and succeed in survival, you need to understand the animal and become one with it. To be able to understand the animal well enough to track and kill it, you need empathy. This does not mean that they feel empathy towards animals in the sense of an obligation to protect and feed them. To the Ju/’hoansi, empathy is a tool in understanding how animals differ from humans as a survival mechanism, whereas in other cultures the idea of empathy revolves around the concepts of unity and connection. The differentiation between these two definitions brings to mind Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs. One cannot concern itself with the well being of others before his/her own wellbeing is not a guarantee. So Suzman, representing in this sense the culture he comes from, does not need to worry about hunting animals and surviving through a tough season, so he has the time and emotional availability to worry about Dog’s well being, though he has no biological duty to care for him.

      • In James Suzman’s article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” Suzman describes the relationship he developed with Dog, an Africanis dog that he met when he was working with the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert. Dog was killed by village children and in his anger about Dog’s death, Suzman discovered that the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen view the lives of animals very differently than we do. Most people view themselves in relation to other people, we view ourselves as different from people who live in other countries, and on almost a higher level than animals. The Ju/’honasi Bushman viewed themselves in relation to the animals that surrounded them, so they didn’t feel the need to care for the animals around them. They didn’t feel the responsibility as humans to take care of animals, because they viewed themselves as being on the same level as animals. So when Dog died, Suzman felt like it was his responsibility to bury him, as the person that Dog was closest to. The Bushmen didn’t feel the same way, because they didn’t see Dog as their responsibility, to them he was just another village dog. It wasn’t a dog’s responsibility to bury a Bushman, as it wasn’t a Bushman’s responsibility to bury a dog. Suzman uses the story of Dog to show that even though many modern humans view animals as less than them, as their responsibilities, some groups of people don’t think the same way.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” by James Suzman, the writer describes his close relationship with a dog while working with the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert. As Suzman and Dog develop a bond, he begins to question why he seems to be the only person caring for the animals around him. Eventually, village children kill Dog, and Suzman demands they be punished but is met with confusion. Why do all “white ranchers” treat animals so peculiarly? Suzman came to understand that Neolithic culture has raised us to look at animals as companions, while Paleolithic culture believes they can do everything on their own. They do not need compassion, and that is not cruel, it is a fact of life. It is important to understand cultural differences in order to realize why people unlike us do what they do.

      • James Suzman draws upon a few key topics in his article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, most notably empathy or the lack thereof from members of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in Namibia’s Kalahari Desert. Suzman’s essay immediately highlights the coldhearted nature of hunter-gatherer societies and how the Neolithic revolution has shaped the thinking of modern day humans and growing empathy for other ‘animals’. The contrast between Suzman and the members of the Ju/’hoansi is most evident when Suzman is told, “they are not humans. They are dogs. Their ways are different”. This comes after Suzman finds Dog to be in ill-condition after children were merely “demonstrating curiosity” for “experimenting with the corrosive powers” of industrial acid. Suzman emphasises how humans have developed over time to develop emotional relationships with all types of animals, rather than feeding off of a superiority complex of being a sapien rather than a dog. The Neolithic revolution, which resulted in human behaviour transitioning from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural society, is what Suzman draws upon to be thankful for and is “glad to be a child of the Neolithic”.

      • Suzman uses his experience with a stray dog in another country to show the vast differences between cultures. Although we, “we” being Americans or people living in first world countries, find it “normal” and “humane” to accept dogs as another member of our family, this is not a view accepted internationally. This is shown through Suzman’s natural reaction to feed and care for a stray while the local villagers mutilate the stray without second thought. All people have some sort of empathetic relationship with different species of animals; however, the way they display this empathy is different. Suzman does not state how one view is better than the other, he is merely bringing to our attention how these differences in morals and cultural beliefs influence people’s way of thinking and association.

      • While living in the Kalahari Desert among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen, James Suzman observes the number of dogs roaming the village and criticizes the locals’ treatment toward these animals. As people in the west view dogs as companions, friends, family, and establish emotional connections with them, the Ju/’hoansi have the opposite view on dogs. They don’t live with dogs, dog live among them, “Each dog loosely belonged to someone in the village, but they were not considered objects of affection or “part of the family.”” To these people, dogs are similar to pests. Over years of evolution and breeding, dogs have learned to be comfortable around humans. Although being abused, they stick around instinctually. This becomes apparent when Suzman returns from a trip to discover that his dog, Dog, had been abused by the villagers. Children had been playing with some industrial acid and tested it on Dog, who was lying exposed with his flesh burned and exposed. Suzman begins to question why these people are so harsh to loving animals like dogs, while indirectly questioning if there necessarily is a right way of treating them? Society would likely deem that dogs are valued and should be respected, but who’s to say that is correct? After all, they are animals for which many are abused in the pursuit of science. Suzman judges the people of the village without taking into consideration the difference in society and questioning if there is a reason to their attitude towards dogs.

      • James Suzman writes a short article, “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” to illustrate the societal differences between the Neolithic and Paleolithic civilizations. The sympathetic narrator, who is surrounded by Ju/’hoansi Bushmen who do not treat dogs in the same gentle manner that he does, is taken aback when he learns that inconveniencing oneself to care for animals is eccentric. As a result, the tender narrator forms a secret connection with Dog by feeding him, scratching his ears and chest, and providing a copious amount of affection. In return, Dog provides the narrator with the companionship that he lacked in the new and unfamiliar territory, the Kalahari Desert. The narrator intentionally tries to keep his and Dog’s companionship a secret because the Ju/’hoansi would contrastingly only study the behaviors of animals in hopes of hunting them. This malevolent motive that the Bushmen possess confuses the narrator at first, but he eventually comes to understand that his strong regard for Dog portrays the differences between the Neolithic and Paleolithic ways of life. He ultimately understands that the Ju/’hoansi were brought up in a different environment than he, a child of the Neolithic, was, which is the main focus of Suzman’s article.

      • In James Suzman’s “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, Suzman recounts the story of when he formed a relationship with Dog whilst living amongst the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert in Namibia. While living there, Suzman created a relationship with Dog by sharing food with him and in return, Dog gave him companionship in a place where it felt “alien and unsettling”. However, one day, while Suzman was out, a couple of the Ju/’hoansi children found Suzman’s bottle of industrial acid and, out of curiosity, decided to test it on certain objects and then eventually on Dog. From this, Dog suffered injuries that he would eventually succumb to and thus, out of anger, Suzman demanded that the children be punished. However, what Suzman failed to realize was that his, and many Westerners, perspective on how people should treat domesticated animals, such as dogs, were vastly different from how the Ju/’hoansi people viewed the relationship between man and dog. To the Ju/’hoansi, in order to survive and hunt down animals for food, they needed to “be the animal”. The Ju/’hoansi viewed this type of bond between man and animal to be empathetic, while Suzman viewed a companionship-like relationship with domesticated animals to be empathetic.

      • In “Sympathy for the Desert Dog”, by James Suzman, his short-lived encounter with Dog during his time with the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen shows indifference and usually less than optimal treatment towards animals due to the type of lives they lead. The Ju/’hoansai were direct descendants of hunter-gatherer groups that lived in the surrounding area. Similar to before the Neolithic Revolution, animals were not domesticated until after the said revolution. Because hunter/gather societies predated the Agricultural Revolution, the Ju/’hoansai also did not domesticate the surrounding dogs. Susman was later told by Kaice, his friend, this fact that they built no empathetic relation with animals like dogs. They believed dogs were more like animal neighbors, which have their own “customs, habits”, and own way to interact/experience the world. He learned that his relationship with domesticated animals like dogs, like most all humans in the modern age, and the connotation that dogs are “mans best friend”, were a result of the Neolithic Revolution.

      • In the essay “Sympathy for a Desert Dog,” Suzman recounts an experience he had with a village dog in the Kalahari Desert, a region of Africa home to the Ju/’hoansi people (who are mainly hunters and gatherers). After the dog is injured by the village children and subsequently dies, the villagers question Suzman’s care for the dog, both during its life and after it had died. Suzman eventually comes to realize that based on the customs and worldview of the Ju/’hoansi people, dogs are essentially regarded as a separate society; as his friend Kaice puts it, “their ways are different.” He identifies this as a result of the Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer ways of the Ju/’hoansi, passed down over generations and embedded into their culture. Suzman’s own empathy for the dog comes from his Neolithic attitude. He was more inclined to seek “mastery” over the dog, to build a bond with it as one would another human being. The Ju/’hoansi saw a separation of their society from the dog’s; Suzman wanted to integrate it into his own.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, James Suzman explains the differences in ways of life throughout humanity that the Neolithic Revolution caused. As he speaks about the dog that he befriended, he discusses how he feels sympathy for the starving animal and cares for it like one would a human. However, the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen, a group of hunter-gatherers, empathize with dogs in a different way. They don’t focus on their human characteristics or treat them as pets; instead, they see them as hunters would, wild animals. So, Suzman realizes that his relationship with Dog is merely a result of the Neolithic Revolution, but he is happy to have it, compared to the different type of empathy and relationships that the Ju/’hoansi carry with animals.

      • In James Suzman’s article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” Suzman shares his past experience with Dog a village dog he met when he was doing ethnographic fieldwork among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in Namibia’s. An overarching lesson Suzman learned from this experience is that empathy can be shown in a multitude of ways and his experience with Dog was different from that of the Ju/’hoansi’s, the descendants of people that hunted and gathered, due to cultural differences. Suzman first began his story by explaining the misanthropic behavior he observed from the Ju/’hoansi’s toward the village dogs. He could not comprehend this behavior because he was raised in the Neolithic Revolution where dogs were deemed to be part of the family. However, for the Ju/’hoansi’s empathy was not shown in the same fashion. Throughout Suzman’s story, he explains how he felt a responsibility to take care of Dog. Consequently, when Dog died he felt a responsibility to bury him. On the other hand, the Ju/’hoansi’s felt no responsibility towards the village dogs. This was not because they were vile human beings with no heart but rather due to their belief system. They believed that dogs were people and were just like any other species. Dogs were a constant fascination for them however, they did not think they owed them anything as they were equals.

      • James Suzman used the story of a dog he befriended to show the difference between the Ju/’hoansi culture and his own. He also wanted to teach readers that animals deserve to be treated with respect. As direct descendants of hunter-gatherers, the Ju/’hoansi people had an unempathetic relationship with non-human animals. Domesticated animals, such as dogs, were left to fend for themselves. Suzman however, believed that they should be treated with compassion. During his time in the Kalahari Desert, Suzman befriended Dog. He made sure Dog was well fed and he followed Suzman everywhere he went. The lesson the author was trying to teach is that all animals should be treated with kindness and empathy.

      • Suzman’s objective in writing this piece was to emphasize the basic differences in the way that Westerners and the Ju/’hoansi interacted with animals, and to thereby extrapolate the basic differences in the way members of the two societies experience the universe. He does this first by exploring differences in the ways we interact with domestic animals, in particular a dog that he had aptly named Dog. When schoolchildren squirted industrial acid on Dog, condemning him to a slow, torturous death, Suzman wanted the children to be punished. The villagers’ confusion at his desire to punish the children for causing undue harm to the dog is the first break in understanding between Western values and the Ju/’hoansi society. Suzman then goes on to synthesize a total difference in worldview from this pressure point, a Paleolithic vs. Neolithic split, a split between desk jobs and cushy lives and pets contrasted against a life of hardship, short on food, long hunts to survive, and no capacity to support more than absolutely necessary. Simply by examining the way schoolchildren treated a stray animal, Suzman has (rather effectively) established a clear dichotomy between two entirely different societies which came about under entirely different environments.

      • In James Suzman’s article Sympathy for a Desert Dog he recounts the eye opening experience he had regarding the death of his dog companion in a Ju/’hoansi Bushmen village. Suzman tells the story of the friendship he developed with a stray dog he deemed “Dog” in a Ju/’hoansi village. The Ju/’hoansi did not comprehend Suzman’s relationship with his dog and thought it to be abnormal. Some time passes, and Dog is killed by some Ju/’hoansi children who poured industrial grade acid on him out of “curiosity”. Suzman demonstrates his anger at the children for killing his pet by demanding they be punished accordingly, but his pleas only confuse the adults of the village. The adults of the village say there is nothing wrong with the children’s curiosity and that the dog is simply just a dog and nothing more. Suzman attributes this different kind of empathy where one puts themselves in the place of the animal rather than giving sympathy from the standpoint of a human to the Ju/’hoansi’s hunter-gatherer society. Suzan deduces that the Ju/’hoansi are simply still of the Paleolithic era where humans and animals view each other as equals while he and Dog were products of the Neolithic era where humans assumed the mantle of caretaker for all animals deemed lesser than them.

      • In James Suzman’s article, “Sympathy for a Desert Dog,” Suzman submerges himself in the lifestyle of a different culture to his own and emerges with a broader perspective of civilization. Suzman has the opportunity to perform fieldwork among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen in Namibia’s Kalahari Desert. During his time there, Suzman befriends Dog, one of the many stray dogs roaming around the desert. When Dog is brutally tortured by some of the Ju/’hoansi children, Suzman is rather shockingly introduced to the concept of Imagined Order. He learns that the Ju/’hoansi view dogs as just another species that have to fend for themselves, therefore they have no real emotional tie to them. The Imagined Order describes how societies are filled with common myths, such as money, laws, companies, or in this case, domesticated animals. The more modernized a society is, the more progressed these common myths become. As the Ju/’hoansi are still living in a Paleolithic society, their specific people have yet to domesticate dogs, whereas Suzman coming from a modern Western society feels an engrained connection and need to take care of dogs as pets are a common myth in his community. Suzman walks away from his fieldwork with this realization of the Imagined Order and appears to be thankful for his expanded worldview. Nevertheless, he is grateful for the existence of common myths and modernization, as he is conditioned to feel a connection to dogs.

      • Suzman’s core lesson within his article, “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” focuses on how conflicting cultures lead to contrasting perspectives. James Suzman is an anthropologist who spent a portion of his life working with the Kalahari people of Africa. During his time, Suzman befriends a dog and cares for it, however, much to his dismay, the dog is abused by the village children and is killed. The dog’s death leaves Suzman in indignation and demands that the children be punished for their actions. But to his surprise, the villagers were stoic and confused by Suzman’s outburst. To the villagers, the dog was nothing but another species that simply existed within their world. They were not a companion and they were not treated like human beings because they are not simply put human beings. The Ju/’hoansi are descendants of the ancient foragers and hunter-gatherers that roamed the Kalahari, and from their ancestors, they learned to view animals differently. To them, animals were just animals and didn’t associate any human characteristics with them. Death and pain are all apart of life and it’s just something that animals feel. That’s why the villagers lacked sympathy and compassion for the dog. On the other hand, this greatly contrasts with the belief of those in the Western hemisphere. People in Western society often ingrain human characteristics within dogs and think of them as loyal or amicable creatures, and by doing so we are treating them like another human being in a way. However, this type of thinking is a product of the Neolithic Revolution when wolfs were domesticated by humans as partners. And this is why the Ju/’hoansi couldn’t feel the same because their ancestors and culture stems from the Paleolithic era, a time of foragers. But the main focus that Suzman wants to point out is that neither side is wrong. It’s just simply a differing perspective that stems from our ancestors and culture.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog,” Suzman gives an anecdote about his fieldwork in Namibia’s Kalahari Desert. He meets Dog, the bravest out of all the other dogs in the village of Skoonheid, and befriends him through time and affection. Suzman’s relationship with the dog was cut short once children from the village found curiosity in testing out the industrial acid. Dog unfortunately became one of the victims of their curiosity, and later died from severe injuries. This incident can be a prime example of the “Imagined Order” which came to be with the Neolithic Revolution. Suzman, a Neolithic, is introduced to the very different cultures of the Bushmen who are Paleolithic. His attachment to Dog is essentially a myth; it’s a social order imagined from a community who believe a pet is necessary for our lives. This belief doesn’t come into questioning until his encounter with the hunter-gatherers who insist that to empathize with an animal, “you have to ‘be’ the animal.” This insight into his neighbors’ way of life leaves him saying he is “glad to be a child of the Neolithic,” and perhaps not realizing how myths like this are the ones that shape our modernizing society.

      • Assuming one day you get home, and you find out that your beloved pet dog has been poisoned and killed by someone else, you would lament it greatly and be furious with whoever committed such atrocity. However, if a primitive human hunter from the Stone Age were to use poison arrows to hunt down a wild dog, the killing would more than likely not be considered as inhumane or infuriating as my aforementioned example, even though the same kind of suffering was afflicted to that dog. It is apparent how humans’ views on animals and the environment has shifted considerably from the Paleolithic era to the Neolithic era, and this anecdote of James Suzman perfectly accentuates this change. The story essentially reflects a clash between the two ideologies, where Suzman views dogs as supportive and intimate companions to humanity, yet the Ju/’hoansi views dogs as no more than preys and part of the environment. Consequently, when the dog that Suzman showed affections to was brutally killed by the children of Ju/’hoansi, he viewed it as a savage and punishable act. However, as Suzman learned how Ju/’hoansi’s empathy for animals is drastically different from today’s pet owners’ in that they put their mindsets into the animals in order to learn and hunt them, so that Ju/’hoansi could survive with ample food source. Their version of empathy originates from their respect and coexistence with the mother nature and their compassion does not extend to other species. As human civilization progresses beyond the Neolithic era, we began to subjugate nature, categorize animals, and even grow close relationships with some species so they can work around human needs. We, as a species, has come to the top of the world and even created our own morals and this passage serves as a crystal-clear testament to that.

      • Susan begins his article by highlighting the Ju/’hoansi people’s way of treating dogs. They are very reckless and have no sympathy towards dogs. He states that the kids would experiment with bottles of industrial acid on dogs, causing the dogs to die. Ju/’hoansi people had no compassionate relationship with dogs whatsoever. Susan later on describes the relationship between humans and dogs during the agricultural revolution, which is completely different to the way Ju/’hoansi people treated the dogs. Farmers treated dogs like humans or even better. Dogs were given meat and taken care of with love, and the farmers would even allow dogs to sleep on their bed as well. Why do Ju/’hoansi people and the farmers treat dogs so differently? It is because Ju/’hoansi people believe that dogs should act like animals. In other words, they want dogs to help them like humans do. They want dogs to go out and help them when they are hunting, fishing,..etc. On the other hand, farmers viewed dogs as their friend and family like how we do in our society. This brings up an interesting question for the farmers. Why do they only treat dogs so compassionately, when they are making cows and other animals work.

      • In the article “Sympathy for a Dear Dog”, the author James Suzman writes about his story with Dog that takes place in Namibia’s Kalahari Desert, where local people Ju/’hoansi shares a different idea towards the definition of “empathy”. In Suzman’ story telling, he pets the Dog when he first visits the village of Skoonheid, where people own their dogs but don’t really care about them. However, Suzman acts differently. He not only feeds Dog with food, but also gives him affection. In return, Dog offers him companionship in an alien environment. A crash on idea happens when Suzman wants to give Dog a human burial, which Ju/’hoansi consider to be really absurd. In their school of thought, they believe people should only show empathy toward animals when there exists a hunt and hunted relation.Yet, Suzman believes that “in the case of dogs their sociability, their loyalty, their gratitude”, people should show empathy since animals like dogs urging for human’s affection during their evolution throughout the history.

      • After losing his newfound companion, Suzman was introduced to a new perspective that expanded his views on how humans interact with other types of animals. Suzman begins his writing by talking about his companionship with the desert dog, Dog, he found in the Ju/’hoansi village. When Suzman comes back to the village one day, he is heartbroken to find that some of the kids from the village had poured acid on Dog, causing Dog to experience a long and painful death. Many of the villagers were confused by Suzman’s reaction to Dog’s death and the human-like burial he hosted for him. Suzman has normalized the mentality that pets are somewhat equal to humans, so when he hears the reactions of the people from the Ju/’hoansi village, he is taken back by the lack of sympathy they have for Dog’s death. Kaice, a friend of Suzman from the village, explains to Suzan that within the village, the people view animals as separate species that have their own way of life in a shared world. When the people of the Ju/’hoansi village consider animals, they think of the non-human aspects they carry. With that being said, they don’t necessarily sympathize with other animals because they feel little connection to them. The people of the Ju/’hoansi village all share a common mindset that they value humans, but all animals are just seen as non-humans to them and not much more. Although this was at first shocking for Suzman, he took time to understand the cultural difference that was bestowed upon him. While dogs and other animals may seem extremely important to Suzman, his feelings towards animals are due to a shared agreement among the people he grew up with. Unlike in the Ju/’hoansi village where they share an agreement that dogs and other animals are not considered equal to them. Suzman may not entirely agree with the people from the Ju/’hoansi village, but Dog’s death allowed him to consider this contradicting mindset from the Ju/’hoansi village.

      • While watching the life of a dog and its relationship with villagers in Skoonheid, James Suzman finds evidence of human evolution. Particularly, Suzman sees the differences in empathy for animals between a Neolithic person, himself, and the Paleolithic people of the village. Dog, the dog’s name, lives among the people and has to hunt and forage for food like them. The dogs were meant to take care of themselves. So when Dog is injured and killed by the village kids and Suzman is hurt by this, no one else in the village is phased. The people believe it is odd when Suzman gives Dog a human burial, too. They say, “Dog is a dog”. Suzman soon realizes major differences in the empathy he feels for the dog, coming from a Neolithic background where he doesn’t have to hunt and forage, versus the village people. The village people do not relate to the dog’s human qualities of loyalty and gratitude but instead, they connect with the dog’s need to survive like them. They see the dog as a dog and do not try to relate the dog to them as humans. It is a kind of empathy that Neolithic people have evolved away from, Suzman finds that the extension of human characteristics to other species can only occur in the Neolitilic lifestyle where people do not have to hunt similarly to the animals.

      • James Suzman’s relationship with Dog and his Ju/’hoan neighbors provided him with a new meaning of empathy towards animals; he learned that emphasizing with an animal did not mean inserting his own human narrative into its perspective but rather appreciating the differences between an animal and humans, claiming one “had to ‘be’ the animal”. This differs from the preconceived notion that to have an empathetic relationship with any animal, specifically a dog, was to recognize the commonalities a human shared with it, Suzman uses “their sociability, their loyalty, their gratitude” as examples. The Ju/’hoansi live in equality with the animals around them as they see themselves as “just one of many different kinds of animal-people in a wild environment”. The Neolithic point of view puts humans at the top of this pyramid that the Paleolithic Ju/’hoansi see as a flat level, selecting which animals were to be treated with sympathy and bred for the most desirable traits as a companion. Ultimately, Suzman realizes this way of truly empathizing with animals would provide humans with a much more holistic approach to the world around them, but is thankful for the pets back home “that have evolved to crave our affection”.

      • Suzman in his article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” recounts his trip to the village of Skoonhied. Specially, the day he met a mistreated village dog; he believes this encounter reinforces this idea of human evolvement. He briefly compares his view of the dogs place to theirs; where he and the society in which he comes from view dogs as “part of the family” the Bushman did not. Suzman writes that the Bushman “empathized with the animals with whom they shared their world” where as he and most pet owners sympathize. Suzman believes this experience confirms that as society evolves so does the way that people think. Suzman sees the dog and acknowledges not only the human emotions a dog feels but also his own position over the animal. According to Suzman the Bushmen can’t think like this because they are equal with the dog and animals themselves. Their society has not evolved into a place where they can look at themselves as above an animal so they treat the animals as though it was their neighbor. In hard times you may feel bad for a suffering neighbor but when the whole town this struggling it can be easy for people to develop an almost inhumane like indifference toward the problems of others. Suzman however has “evolved” so he is appalled by the dogs treatment. Suzman realizes that the people in the village would never understand his views just as he will never understand theirs. He just is grateful that he doesn’t have live as they do.

      • Suzman introduces Dog’s story to show the aggressiveness/negligence the people of Ju/’hoansi had towards animals. Suzman described the interactions the tribe had for dogs came from “in the form of kicks or flying stones”. Based on different occurrences the Ju/’hoansi had with dogs, where they would only use dogs for foraging. and would let them fend for themselves depicts that they had no empathy for them. This tribe were hunters and gatherers, animals were just food to them. When Suzman’s dog dies from acid being thrown at it by children, he feels that it is his job to bury Dog because of the emotional/loving relationship they had. The bushmen people believed that this was not necessary as it was not a responsibility for them. Suzman uses his dog story to convey the different beliefs the Neolithic had compared to the Paleolithic.

      • Author, James Suzman, is faced with a juxtaposition that pushes him to think more deeply about his unique relationship to his animal friend, “Dog” in his article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog.” While amongst the Ju/’hoansi people, Suzman is hurt to see the way his dog, and general dogs, are treated in the community. It is when the people confront Suzman’s love and adoration for this animal that he realizes the ground they come from. The Ju/’hoansi people have spent years being put second to animals they consider equal “persons” to them. When they were starved, their oppressors fed the dog, when they were pushed to the back, the dog sat in the front, and when they were not even welcomed into homes, the dog slept alongside these Bushmen workers. The Bushmen workers, or “whites” would treat dogs as if they were humans when in reality, they are, too, just another animal. The Ju/’hoansi people believed that, just like during the days of hunting and gathering, each creature was for themselves: survival with respect to a food chain and an animal kingdom.

      • The lesson that Suzman takes from the dog story is that different people may have different customs which would cause them to act differently toward certain places, people, animals, or things. Like in the story he notes that the other tribe has a more religious and spiritual connection to the animals. In which they believe that after they kill the animals, they are giving the animal what some might call a warriors death and honoring the animal’s sacrifice and battle. Then they bond with the animal by eating it. Meanwhile, he has a different relationship in which is more affectionate. The two have a mutual bond in which the dog give companionship and sometimes protection in return for food. While Suzman gains companionship as well and potentially a hunting buddy in return for caring for the dog and giving it food and shelter.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, the writer James Suzman depicts his short encounter with Dog and illustrates opposite attitudes he and the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen hold towards dogs, which further shows the cultural differences between the two civilizations. Specifically, when Suzman first met the Dog, he shared food and showed affection to the Dog. The Dog also gave feedback to him by keeping him companion during his journey. However, he then found out that Dog was poisoned by children from Kalahari Desert in Namibia and the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen showed “indifference” towards the death of the Dog. He discovered that although dogs belong to someone, they were not taken as “a part of the family” by the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen as Suzman described in the article since Ju/’hoansi Bushmen don’t think they are obligated to take care of dogs like how Suzman believes. They are inherited from hunter-gatherers and they are still foragers who put themselves on the same level with other animals and take hunting as their only responsibility, which made them show little empathy towards dogs. So, Suzman realized the cultural difference between Neolithic and Paleolithic civilizations.

      • James Suzman’s essay: Sympathy for a Desert Dog tells the story of his experience with a stray dog by which he believes adopted him in Namibia’s Kalahari Desert. Suzman uses his story to demonstrate how the two different cultures have starkly opposing ideas of empathy towards dogs. The Ju/’hoansi people’s attitude towards dogs was demonstrated best when Suzman describes the actions of the village children had inflicted on Dog. While Suzman was gone some of the children had poured acid on Dog. After Suzman had insisted that the children should face consequences for their actions, the Ju/’hoansi people shut down his request, claiming that “ the children should not be punished for demonstrating curiosity.” (Suzman) The issue here lies in that the author and the villagers struggle to see eye to eye on the basis of empathy for an animal. What the author failed to realize in the moment was that The Ju/’hoansi people do not consider dogs to be worthy of affection, remarking that dogs are not humans and therefore should not be treated as such. This ideology causes people of the Ju/’hoansi to feel very apathetic towards dogs and causes them to feel no obligation to care for them. While the Ju’/hoansi perspective towards that of wild animals may seem barbaric and inhumane in nature, the author must empathize with them first before casting judgement. Most of the Ju’/hoansi people do not have the resources available to them that the authors society does, to support their own community combined with those of the village dogs. This is why empathy not just for animals but also for those with different belief systems is crucial in order to gain an understanding for their actions.

      • In James Suzman’s Sympathy for a Desert Dog, Suzman employs an emotional appeal when describing his relationship with Dog to highlight the effects of different revolutions and its impact on their interaction with animals. During Suzman’s time with Dog, he slipped him “leftovers”, and got him his “own”bowl.” To western citizens, this is how most dogs are treated and how westerners treat their dogs is a direct result of the Neolithic Revolution. During the Neolithic Revolution, animals such as wolves became domesticated in an human attempt to showcase their dominance. However, the domestication of dogs didn’t happen in the Paleolithic Revolution. When treating Dog how a western would treat a dog, Suzman was criticized by the Ju/’hoansi. To the Ju/’hoansi a dog is a dog and does not deserve to be treated as a human, and Dog’s passing reinforced their belief that animals are less than humans. When some kids experimented on Dog with industrial acid, leading to his untimely death, Suzman demanded that the children be punished. However the Ju/’hoansi didn’t believe that the children should get punished for their curiosity. What Suzman considered the Ju/’hoansi’s indifference to Dog’s suffering, the Ju/’hoansi viewed as the nature of Dog. The Ju/’hoansi have adapted an every man for himself attitude whilst westerners cared for and domesticated other animals. This every man for himself attitude stemmed from food insecurity because the Ju/’hoansi don’t have the privilege of taking care of something that is not one of their own.

      • James Suzman illustrates his understanding of the differences in the development of empathetic domestication of animals, specifically dogs, in a paleolithic world. Suzman, while living in the Kalahari Desert with the Ju/’hoansi, had befriended a dog, and many of the Ju/’hoansi had found strange the way the two interacted. Suzman suggests his empathetic relationship with the dog is based on “traits our species and their species have in common— in the case of dogs their sociability, loyalty, and gratitude.” This completely differed from how the Ju/’hoansi and other hunter-gatherer groups viewed the dogs. They believed you couldn’t develop empathy by connecting with the animal from a human perspective, but to “be” the animal,” you had to become one with it, to understand its customs on a transcendental level. With this empathy, they will not feel a close personal connection to animals, more or less treating them as part of the world around them.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, James Suzman recounts his special experience with a dog he connected with while in a remote African village. Upon the death of Dog due to (his perceived) cruelty of some of the village children, Suzman receives a first-hand reality check on behalf of some of his companions– the children would not be punished because they didn’t do anything wrong. Dog was not a member of their society, but of a species with which humans coexist on an equal plane. Why should the children not exercise their curiosity when possible? With this, Suzman’s experience overlaps with Harai’s analysis of “imagined realities”. His sympathy towards Dog is the product of an imagined truth, extending back thousands of years to the Agricultural Revolution; just one example of the many imagined truths, that Harari argues, holds modern society together. Suzman’s way of expressing this realization is much more personal than Harari’s: it includes emotional conflict and a firsthand account of a culture that harbors many hunter-gatherer ideals. Harari, on the other hand, takes a far more zoomed-out, academic approach. Nonetheless, both are committed to shattering (or, at the very least, exposing for consideration,) the illusion of the “imagined reality”.

      • James Suzman falsely concludes in his article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog” that the Ju/’hansai feel empathy for animals, such as Dog, in a unique way due to their complex understanding of animal behavior. The Ju/’hansai are indeed very knowledgeable when it comes to tracking animals and predicting their movements. However, Suzman is wrong to agree that they share these creatures’ feelings, which is a crucial part of empathy. In his own example, Suzman describes how village children had poured a fatal amount of acid on Dog, only for the Ju’/hansai to write the behavior off as “demonstrating curiosity indifferently.” If they could have genuinely related to Dog’s suffering, the Ju’/hansai would have taught the children that they were wrong to cause another creature harm, as they would not want to be hurt similarly. What their actual reaction to this behavior demonstrates is apathy. The Ju’/hansai are indifferent to Dog’s pain and the pain of animals in general, as this is an ordinary, often necessary occurrence. This mindset is critical to being a successful hunter but detrimental to being an empathetic human.

      • Throughout James Suzman’s article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog,” Suzman mentions multiple times the idea that the Bushmen “feel empathy for the animals around them.” This is wholeheartedly false. Empathy is defined as the ability to understand the feelings of another (Oxford Dictionary). How can one fully understand how Dog felt while continuing to pour acid on his back? The answer is- they can’t. One could argue that the Bushmen were treated in the same way that they treat their dogs, stones thrown, cast out, forced to find their own food, but this only further reinforces my point. If the Bushmen have experienced the pain that they cause their dogs first hand, they should understand the feelings that the dogs feel when treated this way. Instead, the Bushmen cast their empathy aside and continue to treat and let the children treat their dogs in a simply inhumane way.

      • In “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, James Suzman talks about the realization that people living a different lifestyle, Paleolithic, differ in interspecies compassion. The people of the Skoonheid village have to hunt and forage for food just like the animals so unlike Suzman there is no empathy for the animals in the same position as them. The village people saw the animals as people. “Not humans but people”. It is not that the village people lack empathy for the dying animal but that they see the animal as a capable being. Suzman, however, comes from a society where he doesn’t have to go out and hunt for food. Thus, he would feel a strange responsibility for the hurting animals because his life is much easier. The Neolithic people grant these animals human qualities and empathize with them. The evolution of the human lifestyle has changed the way humans think of their surroundings. Therefore, I am not surprised that the village people do not have strong compassion for the dog because they do not have a sense of responsibility for the dog’s life when they have to live the same hard hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

      • In my opinion, Suzman’s thinking is very similar to Harari’s definition of an “Imagined Order”. Harari, emphasized the idea, that social norms and standards of living are purely a shared imagination of people existing in the same community. In the same way, Suzman, as a Neolithic, focused on the ideal of social order, that his generation, experience, and culture granted him, when he was born. Finding himself in a paleolithic environment, the village of Skoonheid, he faced a very different set of integrated beliefs. Suzman viewed dogs as companions, because such a behavior was, in Harari’s words, inter-subjective in his society. When Kaice explained to Suzman the reasoning behind Ju’hoansi’s attitude, he recognized that. He writes about the gap that occurred in how people approach animals based on the Neolithic revolution. Ju’hoansi are modern hunter-gatherers, and have not learned to fit dogs into the human world. Lastly, at the end of his article, he regards himself lucky to be “a child of the Neolithic”. As Harari said: “you never admit your order is imagined”.

      • When regarding the key differences between the Paleolithic Era and Neolithic Revolution, as well as mankind’s relationship to the world and established societal norms, James Suzman and Yuval Noah Harari take differing positions. In Suzman’s New York Times article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, he describes a relationship formed with a dog in a hunter-gatherer community in Namibia’s Kalahari desert. The Ju/’hoansi village he inhabited regarded dogs with little sympathy (to which he first detested), as the main concern in their society was to understand the behavioral tendencies of the neighboring animal species so as to better hunt prey; this was essential to their survival. In the Neolithic Revolution, however, mankind began to domesticate animals like the wolf. These now domesticated dogs provided humans, who are social creatures by nature, comfort as well as often assisting in hunting practices. These interconnected relationships with other animals created symbiotic beneficial relationships; most notably, it placed humans as the superior species to their environment as they manipulated their surroundings to their existence. In opposition, the Paleolithic hunter-gatherer communities placed themselves as equals to their animal counterparts. Though Suzman recognizes the Ju/’hoansi’s differing treatment of dogs for their survival purposes, he reveres the Neolithic Revolution for the domestication of dogs based on personal bias. His biases are based on an imagined order that dogs are companions, as our society has long held interpersonal relationships with the beloved house pet. Harari addresses these imagined orders in our society much like Suzman. However, Harari criticizes the Agricultural/ Neolithic Revolution for its flaws. He supports the notion that previous hunter-gatherer practices from the Paleolithic Era better supported humans’ physical and societal wellbeing.

      • The idea that society is built around an “imagined order” is shared between the works of Harari and Suzman. In his essay, Suzman describes the negative outlook that the Ju/’hoansi had on the relationship between him and Dog. They could not accept the mutualism between a human and an animal. To them, it was as absurd as medieval noblemen believing in individualism. In the minds of the Ju/’hoansi, animals were people, not humans and there was a difference. In his book, Harari points out that someone growing up in medieval times would believe that their place in civilization was dictated by a social hierarchy. There would be no sense of self-identity and an individual’s existence would be conventional. Both of these shared beliefs originated from a myth that manifested into a reality and both Harari and Suzman reveal the difficulty of an individual trying to change it. When he wanted the children punished for their cruel acts, not only did he not get an apology, but the Ju/’hoansi neighbors justified the cruel acts as a demonstration of curiosity. In correspondence, Harari characterizes the “imagined order” as inter-subjective in which changing it cannot be accomplished by one person.

      • Although written differently, both Suzman and Harari share perspectives in the presence of an “Imagined Order”. While Suzman reveals a more personal anecdote about the “Imagined Order”, Harari uses more vocabulary to define and provide names for such ideas. In Suzman’s article “Sympathy for a Desert Dog”, the readers follow his journey to realize the presence of inter-subjective beliefs. Being a Neolithic, Suzman was able to develop an emotional connection with Dog. However, living within a Paleolithic environment (the village of Skoonheid), Suzman realizes how different Neolithic and Paleolithic people view animals. Whereas he, the Neolithic, viewed animals as a supportive companion, the Ju/’hoansi saw animals as a lesser being, something to be hunted and mistreated. Even if Suzman disagrees with some ideas, he recognizes the existence of society with different beliefs. Likewise, in Chapter six of Harari’s “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”, Harari acknowledges the possibility of multiple civilizations existing due to shared myths or from something that encourages people to continue authentically believing in it. As Harari reveals evidence throughout history, specifically the Code of Hammurabi and the American Declaration of Independence, he finds that all the principles enforced have no objective validity. Suzman and Harari both agree on the existence of the “Imagined Order” and how it can affect everyone differently. With the same idea, the only difference between Suzman and Harari is the presentation of information. Suzman draws upon an emotional connection by providing his personal experience whereas Harari utilizes vocabulary and definitions to help the readers associate a name to a theme being illustrated.

      • In both of their works, Suzman and Harari convey a very similar perspective in regard to moral relativism and the idea of an “Imagined Order”. While Suzman certainly relies more on pathos in his essay, especially compared to Harari’s factual and academic style, they both engage the reader in critical thinking about what, if anything, is objectively “right”. For Americans, Hammurabi’s Code seems archaic and deeply cruel, as we shudder at the inane evil of sentencing a child to die for their parent’s crime. For a modern person living in the West, the idea that animals do not need nor deserve compassion would be considered heinous and ghastly. However, Harari and Suzman both show in their works how these viewpoints are not tangible, directly observable, or provable. Instead, they posit the notion that a system of morality is simply a shared fiction meant to increase wellbeing or unite a kingdom. The Ju/’hoansi people have not gone extinct precisely because they do not extend love or mercy to fellow animals, but instead understand and relate to the creatures as a means to extend their own survival. Likewise, Harari describes how Hammurabi’s Code, while inordinately harsh through a contemporary lens, allowed millions of Babylonians to cooperate and live in safety and prosperity (if followed). Harari’s approach to this notion of an “Imagined Order” is evidence-based and shaped by historical context, while Suzman’s vision is shaped by his personal and emotional experience with differing moral codes across cultures. However, they both convey the theory that the Western world is governed by social constructs that are neither empirical nor objectively true, and that this should be the lens through which we view both historical and contemporary societies that differ from our own.

      • Suzman and Harari would happen to agree that the idea that Dog has certain rights is an inter-subjective idea. Harari states that inter-subjective ideas, or beliefs common to a number of individuals, are myths; things like our religious beliefs, money, or animal rights exists only so far as we believe they exist. Suzman arrives at this rude awakening once Kaice tells him that the notion of animals exhibiting human qualities is unique to Suzman’s Neolithic ancestors – humans don’t intrinsically think of dogs as family members or friends. Harari would be quite familiar with Kaice’s logic, having written in detail how myths, such as laws and morals, are used to unite large swaths of people. Harari would point out that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong about children spilling acid on an animal like what happened to Suzman’s dog; the children and Kaice’s system of morals, their myths, are just different. In Harari’s more analytical view, no myth is better, in contrast to Suzman’s final remarks of pride in his own myth.

      • Yuval Noah Harari and James Suzman have similar ideas about what makes humans able to group together from common beliefs and values. Both emphasized that what makes groups of humans able to work is the shared beliefs that they hold. Suzman emphasizes the importance about how the beliefs on animal relations makes him and this group naturally opposing, while the group itself runs well. Harari also emphasizes the importance of shared beliefs, such as in a specific political system, that would allow for larger groupings of people to run smoothly. Where these authors may not be completely together is in the fact that Suzman does prove his ability to live and socialize with a group of people who do not share the same beliefs, while Harari does emphasize how this structure would fall apart.

      • Both Suzman and Harari recognize this idea of intersubjectivity and how many of the norms in most modern day societies are purely imagined by humans. However, that shared acknowledgement in their claims are only the very surface of their arguments. When examining both author’s statements more in depth, their views disconnect rather greatly. Throughout Suzman’s analysis of the difference between the way Ju/’hoansi and other societies that claimed their influence from the Neolithic Revolution interact with animals, Suzman claims that from revolution, humans adopted the practice of actively seeking out “human traits” within animals, and that the sympathy we share with certain animals is dependent on how characteristically similar they are to us. However, a Hararian take of this analysis would not necessarily disagree with Suzman’s claim, but rather denote Suzman’s claim to a surface-level analysis of why certain Sapiens have such a strong attachment to animals and of the shared practice of domestication. Harari’s argument that human rights and equality all exist within the human imagination would extend equally to arguments made by animal rights activists, or more specifically pet owners. Therefore, Harari would question Suzman on what exactly classifies a dog, or any other domesticated animal, as human-like. If humans were to tame animals that shared human traits, chimpanzees or bonobos would be the most commonly owned house pet because of their genetic similarities, therefore denouncing Suzman’s claim that dogs share human traits. Harari would go on to argue that domesticated animals are not domesticated because of shared characteristics. Rather, the shared belief that these animals having human characteristics — formed based on how emotionally compatible, calmly tempered, and most importantly how useful they were to humans centuries ago — are, however, the true reason as to why to this day they are viewed as perfect house pets, and therefore are classed highly on the intersubjective hierarchy of what animals are deserving of human acceptance and affection.

      • Harari and Suzman share the idea of societies organizing in accordance with an “Imagined Order.” This imagined order, also known as a set of inter-subjective truths, (or also Émile Durkheim’s collective conscience,) is a collection of intangible beliefs shared by a community that binds them together. In Sapiens, Harari exemplifies this via the imagined order of companies. A company may not be a physical entity, but its existence is tied together by the shared beliefs in the laws that allow and shape its existence. Similarly, in “Sympathy for a Desert Dog,” Suzman states that the Ju/’hoansi are “defined” by “their differences from the lions, elephants, aardvarks, elands and many other desert creatures they lived among,” and their complete empathy for said animals. Suzman’s choice of the word “defined” here is of particular note, as it is indicative of his belief that these shared ideas are what bind the Ju/’hoansi into a community of people. It is therefore evident that both Harari and Suzman are in agreement with the notion of imagined order allowing for societal structures.

      • In the BBC article “How the Oil Industry Made us Doubt Climate Change” by Phoebe Keane, she reveals the fraudulent acts of energy companies regarding climate change and its effects on the world. The primary focus of her argument comes from Exxon oil company. Not only had the company been involved in researching the warming of Earth, but it had been “spending millions of dollars on groundbreaking research” on the detriments that climate change would bring. To think that the company was very dedicated in finding solutions to the issue was just a cover up for their evil intentions. Martin Hoffert, an insider from Exxon, was appalled when he found out the company was presenting information “contradicting their own world-class research groups” to protect their own business. Even the CEO was willing to “spread doubt about the dangers of climate change,” albeit knowing the threat and seriousness of the issue. Because they feared climate change would make the public concerned of the methods they used and the possible negative affects on their business, many energy companies had “engaged in a public-relations campaign that was not only false,” but used to “‘deliberately [undermine] the science’ of climate change.” Additionally, Keane enumerates various dirty tricks that the energy industry has used to diminish the urgency of climate change such as paying independent scientists to back up their claims and funding climate organizations to make false statements. In analyzing the findings of Hoffert and other sources, Keane draws evidence proving the controversy behind climate change comes from deceitful conclusions made by selfish giants in the industry.

      • In the article “The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement,” Heather Mac Donald wrongly alleges that the #MeToo Movement will impose draconian gender and diversity quotas in a variety of industries. She states that when this is a factor in the hiring process, “you will inevitably end up with less qualified employees.” However, this assertion assumes that women and minority hires are “less qualified” than the employees she is implicitly advocating for (white men), an opinion that reeks of misogyny and racism. Mac Donald does not provide any evidence for this claim, demonstrating how it is a slippery slope tactic meant to strike fear into her audience. Furthermore, Mac Donald undermines her own authority, suggesting that she herself is less credible to write this article than a white man. Additionally, Mac Donald claims that gender and diversity standards will harm “American competitiveness and scientific achievement.” This assumption makes the same mistake as the previous quotation: Mac Donald wrongly presumes that having other people than a white man in an industry will somehow diminish its product. Why can’t women contribute to innovation as well? She also attacks “left-wing” views and the “feminist narrative” of the world, declaring that “Western culture” is the “least patriarchal culture in human history.” Again, Mac Donald offers no genuine evidence to back up this claim. She also ignores the very real influences of the patriarchy in the development of Western society, such as the expectation of women to be homemakers and the denial of women from prominent positions of power over the centuries. By the end of the article, it is clear to the reader that Mac Donald’s argument is fraught with baseless claims.
        https://www.manhattan-institut.....11234.html
        https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44958160
        https://www.eleapsoftware.com/.....-the-ugly/
        https://theglobepost.com/2019/.....metoo-era/
        https://fairygodboss.com/artic.....with-metoo
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/k.....d33241280b
        https://www.huffpost.com/entry.....035b8ce786
        https://www.kornferry.com/insi.....evelopment
        https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31.....han-gender
        https://www.vox.com/2018/4/5/1.....accusation

      • In the USNews article written by Mark Perry he explains how hydraulic fracking is the wave of the future and is a innovative method for harvesting natural gas. He makes the argument that using pressurized fracking fluid to create cracks in bedrock to extract oil from within will help reduce CO2 emissions and will revolutionize the amount of emissions released when harvesting natural gas (Perry). While this may be true there are also many environmental costs attributed to this method that Perry exuseuses. While every method of oil extraction has its costs and benefits in my opinion this controversial method should not be encouraged.

        There have been countless petitions put in place to ban fracking due to regulation loopholes making it extremely detrimental to the environment. One of the loopholes being that the US has excused oil drilling mediums from abiding by landmark environmental laws that incorporates Acts like the Safe Drinking Water Act. These loopholes allow for oil/gas companies to undisclose the chemicals they use, allowing them to get away with using unregulated chemicals in the extraction process like carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. Moreover during the drilling process in fracking it is common for Methane gasses–a concentrated greenhouse gas–to be secreted from the drilling sites proving this method of oil extraction is no better for the environment than existing alternatives. The secretions of these toxic chemicals pollute freshwater resources and soils used for farming. Not to mention fracking has been linked to causing earthquakes due to the hydraulic water pressure used in the extraction process interfering with tectonic plates. While many scholars like Perry may claim that it is a step towards the shift to renewable energy, in reality it prologs our dependence on using fossil fuels for energy hindering reaching the goal of renewable energy for the future.
        https://www.usnews.com/opinion.....rgy-future
        https://www.ipaa.org/fracking/
        http://large.stanford.edu/cour.....240/chew2/
        https://www.foodandwaterwatch......EVERYWHERE!
        https://www.vox.com/energy-and.....ate-change
        https://www.bseec.org/despite_.....ay_s_world
        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401
        https://www.worldoil.com/news/.....n-fracking
        https://www.americansagainstfr.....-industry/
        https://www.resilience.org/sto.....ion-issue/

      • In the article “Why Gun Control is Not the Answer, and What We Can Do to Stop Gun Violence”, Flyer states that gun control don’t work because it doesn’t stop shooters from shooting people, but stop people from buying guns to protect themselves. This is absolutely wrong because the criminals will have nowhere to buy new guns, and their guns are captured once they shoot. Flyer states another fraudulous opinion that cancer kills fifty times of people that gun violence does, so it’s not a problem. However, cancer is a disease that can’t be controlled through legislation and cooperation, but people can. Flyer shouldn’t mix the concept of natural disease and artificial violence.

        source attached

        • Forgot to paste quotes.
          Quote 1:”stricter gun regulations do not
          keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Instead, stricter gun laws keep guns away from people like myself: reasonable, mentally-stable, law-abiding people, who know how to safely
          use a firearm.“”
          Quote 2: “However, cancer kills fifty times that many people in the U.S. every year.So why hasn’t anybody proposed legislation to control cancer?”

      • The claims made by Dean Burnett regarding global warming in his article “Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?” are extremely illogical. His central claim is that global warming is not only a myth, but the idea of it is so absurd that we do not need much evidence to prove it. Therefore, throughout his article, he does not give any real facts. He mainly resolves to state his opinion based solely on his own personal observations. For example, in regards to the global warming issue, many businesses have put a stop to the domestic breeding of animals such as cows. However, Burnett states that this did not happen “…because they caused significant environmental damage due to methane and deforestation” as professional scientists have stated multiple times. He instead believes that “…we all know it was orchestrated by the synthetic meat companies.” This argument doesn’t work because Burnett only states a claim without concrete evidence to support it. There is no substance here because Burnett is basically saying “I believe this so you should believe it too” with no facts or evidence behind it.

        The article “U.S. Call To Action On Climate, Health, And Equity: a Policy Action Agenda” makes some valid points on global warming, but does not go about “spreading the word” in the correct way. From the get-go, it addresses this issue as a “public health emergency.” While this would seem to be an effective way of convincing others to act, it also raises anxiety around the issue which could, in turn, prevent progress. Of course, it is extremely important to educate people as much as possible on this issue. However, using fear in order to initiate action is not the answer. Instead, people need to be convinced that making small changes in their lives will greatly improve the future of our planet. Spreading the word in a more calm manner will get people to agree and take action of their own accord, rather than fearing the future and not making the necessary changes to improve our world.

        Links:
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/m.....20aaa012d6

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/S.....1838421366
        https://eandt.theiet.org/conte.....WAEALw_wcB
        https://www.livescience.com/57.....ening.html
        https://www.prweek.com/article.....esnt-exist
        http://ossfoundation.us/projec.....g-evidence
        https://www.climatecentral.org.....xist-19074
        https://www.theguardian.com/co.....bal-debate
        https://www.theguardian.com/sc.....o-you-need
        https://climatehealthaction.or.....Action.pdf

      • Imaginative Conservative author John Hovrat wrote an article titled “Is Defunding the Police the Answer?” and they have made it very clear that defunding the police is not the answer- but for all of the wrong reasons. One of the most glaring reasons and inconsistencies in the article is when Hovrat talks about the fact that police are not meant to be defusing situations such as mental health crisis, homelessness, and addiction. Hovrat then proceeds to explain that we shouldn’t replace police with social workers because “we have legions of social workers who try to help needy individuals” and we have spend trillion on programs that are allegedly “wrongheaded” and even “perpetuate the problem.”

        Instead of supporting his claim that we shouldn’t replace police, Hovrat makes many claims that have no merit and support them with opinion instead of fact. Furthermore, Police officers are not trained how to defuse mental health crisis, addiction, and other similar problems that social workers have had dedicated training in making them the right people for the job.
        https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15.....index.html
        https://www.seattletimes.com/o.....heres-why/
        https://nationalpolicesupportf.....-bad-idea/
        https://www.police1.com/commun.....5W34asSJi/
        https://thehill.com/opinion/cr.....the-police
        https://theimaginativeconserva.....orvat.html
        https://www.usatoday.com/story.....331008002/
        https://www.city-journal.org/d.....the-answer
        https://granitebaytoday.org/co.....he-police/
        https://hice.house.gov/news/do.....entID=6047

      • The Fordham institute produces a wrongheaded argument because they do not address the inequality of the exam itself. Churchill goes on and on about how objective this test is and how it makes it easy to compare students, however if the test is unfair you cannot objectively compare the scores. People who are at a disadvantage will more than likely score lower because they had a harder time taking the questions. Also, accountability of the school shouldn’t necessarily be the focus, if students are too busy working about a test that all teachers are preparing them for they won’t actually learn a great amount of information. “The very objectivity of standardized exams yields comparability of student achievement, a desirable feature for parents and practitioners alike.”

        https://fordhaminstitute.org/n.....ed-testing
        https://educationpost.org/dont.....d-schools/
        https://www.usnews.com/educati.....admissions
        https://www.insidehighered.com.....ts-opinion
        https://www.bushcenter.org/pub.....ledge.html
        https://www.tampabay.com/opini.....ng-column/
        https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo.....t-worth-it
        https://www.huffpost.com/entry....._b_3684212
        https://edsource.org/2020/rese.....nts/628611
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/n.....e039e76781

      • Phoebe Maltz Bovy, author of article “Its Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.” offers the banning of all firearms to be the best way to truly rid the United States of gun violence. Bovy suggests that this view needs to be “embraced unapologetically” (Bovy) in order for this radical method to quell the gun violence epidemic to be truly taken into consideration and gain traction. She even insists that the eradication of guns in the US include the police “as much as possible” (Bovy). Via this eradication, the issue of gun violence is solved; no guns, no gun violence: problem solved. If only it were this easy, the issue would not be an issue. To Bovy, just disregarding the legal and safe gun owners and “placing [gun] ownership itself in the “‘bad'” category” (Bovy) is the way to justify this approach. However, this is unfeasible; the millions of gun owners in the US will not simply accept this and in return have their firearms confiscated. In fact, there is no sound evidence in Bovy’s argument placing guns to be the root cause of gun violence; the guns are what are used in the violence but the person operating the weapon is truly responsible. This is just her view and advocation on how to solve this pressing issue. Plus, she does not even consider her position to be in favor of gun control (Bovy)! There are many factors that cause gun violence but the confiscation of ALL guns in America is simply not the answer. This idea will only foster even more polarization in a time where the nation is already severely divided and at odds.

      • In Vice article “In Defense of Cancel Culture” by Shamira Ibrahim it is argumented in the contrary of the last articles that Cancel Culture is actually effective and it is very powerful in the sense that it gives the ordinary people a chance to voice their concernings and it allows them to get after those who are too powerful to be trialed. Ibrahim does a good work at explaining her point as she gave examples of people that actually had too much power to be judged like Mel Gibson or Doja Cat. Despite de validity of her point, cancel culture is still not the most efficient way of keeping people accountable for their actions. Ordinary people can vote to elect representatives that will pass laws that will keep this people accountable for their wrongdoings. So although cancel culture attempts to fix the problem of injustice in America there are more efficient ways of doing it through te law.

        It was really hard to find 10 sources, these are the ones I found: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1.....scape.html

        https://daily.jstor.org/cancel.....otic-good/
        https://www.vice.com/en/articl.....ely-online
        https://dailyevergreen.com/881.....-benefits/

      • While we once had to deal with the conservative “climate deniers,” a phrase now reserved for conspiracy theorists, the current right-wing position on global warming tends to revolve around “climate inactivism.” As he states in his article for Creators Syndicate, Ben Shapiro adamantly believes that many young climate activists are “complaining without solutions” and that this behavior “isn’t actually useful.” Instead, the behavior draws in the support of “adults hiding behind children to avoid the difficult conversations that must take place about how to achieve solutions.” Here, Shapiro not only spectacularly misrepresents the youth voicing their global warming concerns but also shuns Barack Obama and all other adults who offered their support to the cause. Should Shapiro have taken the time to look for youth-supported climate policy instead of claiming that the climate crisis movement is “complaining without solutions,” he would have made some exciting discoveries. These discoveries include plans to plant and grow enough trees to help offset carbon emissions and implement a carbon tax that encourages renewable energy. There are even plenty of other substantive responses to our changing climate often cited for their effectiveness by young activists. Still, the reality of the situation is that Shapiro would much rather pretend that the youth consists of mindless doomsayers unable to back up their call to action with specific solutions. This assumption allows him to strawman protestors in an ironically childish fashion, leaving him the one “complaining without solutions.”

      • In the FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) article “The Truth About Zero-Tolerance and Family Separation”, author Matt O’Brien attempts to discredit the claims that immigrants at the US border are being ripped away from their families. He writes that “not only is the Trump policy not immoral, it’s a common occurrence when U.S. citizens parents have been charged with a crime.” However, this is unequivocally untrue. A vast amount of the people detained at the border are actually asylum-seekers, and being able to safely and securely reside within a country’s borders while applying for asylum is a right recognized by almost every nation in the world. O’Brien seeks to discredit this as well, saying asylum-seekers just want a “get-out-of-jail-free-card”, but has no facts or figures to back this claim up. Parents seeking asylum are committing no crime, and thus are having their children stolen from them for absolutely no reason. Secondly, when US citizens are charged with a crime, their children are not held in cages with no promise of ever seeing their parents again. To compare these two scenarios is asinine and has no basis in fact. O’Brien also writes that many families at the border are not actually families, but are instead unrelated children claimed by adults so they have a better chance of remaining in the US. O’Brien’s cruel disdain for the inexcusable separation of immigrant families at the border is succinctly summed up when he writes “any attempts to pass legislation requiring DHS to keep alleged “families” together will undermine border integrity.” This callous statement is a prime example of many anti-immigration arguments, most of which are backed up with unsatisfactory evidence, made in bad faith, and deeply misanthropic.

        https://www.foxnews.com/politi.....-at-border
        https://www.dailywire.com/news.....mmigration
        https://www.nationalreview.com.....d/#slide-1
        https://www.theamericanconserv.....migration/
        https://www.theblaze.com/news/.....nesty-bill
        https://www.heritage.org/immig.....ion-reform
        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0.....ation.html
        https://www.fairus.org/issue/b.....-need-know
        https://www.breitbart.com/bord.....crossings/
        https://thefederalist.com/2021.....on-crisis/

      • The article “5 Reasons To Buy A Gun” published on the website Spring Guns & Ammo lists 5 reasons why people should carry guns, 5 reasons that seem to appear in every article that support people’s right of owning guns. One reason listed in the article is “exercise of your rights”, arguing that people’s right to own weapons and firearms are guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This seems to be a common misunderstanding of the correct content of the Second Amendment. If we take a look into it, the Amendment writes that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. However, for most of the gun supporter, they seem to only focus on the last part of the sentence, “the right of the people…. shall not be infringed”, ignoring the first part which is the essence of this Amendment. In the first part, it defines which kind of people should own guns and the purpose of owning these guns: “a well-regulated Militia” appears to be people in army and “being necessary to the security of a free State” means that people owning guns is for the purpose of securing the nation as a whole. However, for most of the gun supporters, there is no need to understand the correct idea behind the Amendment.

        1. https://mndaily.com/247660/unc.....n-control/
        2. https://www.debatingeurope.eu/.....DTr8pMzZQI
        3. https://www.usatoday.com/story.....059968001/
        4. https://time.com/4100408/a-cri.....n-control/
        5. https://www.springgunsandammo......buy-a-gun/
        6. https://www.theatlantic.com/po.....re/554351/
        7. https://www.abqjournal.com/615.....rearm.html
        8. https://www.pewresearch.org/po.....op-reason/
        9. https://www.bedfordshire.polic.....s#e9bc0d8f
        10. https://www.ammoland.com/2011/.....z6nIP5tfPN

      • The article ‘Why Gun Control is Not the Answer, and What We Can Do to Stop Gun Violence’, by Clayton Perry is perhaps one of the most imbecilic pieces of writing I have encountered in trying to argue why gun control is ineffective. Perry writes, “Gun control advocates often cite the 11,000 gun murders in this country each year as justification for stricter gun laws”, the sheer ignorance at seeming to state that 11,000 gun murders are not enough for gun control reform to even be a discussion is extremely horrifying. Perry goes on to write about how cancer deaths are five times higher than that of gun-related deaths and even states, “ So why hasn’t anybody proposed legislation to control cancer?”. This is not only alarming in terms of where his morality lies in terms of people losing the 11,000 people that lost their lives to guns each year, but it would also make me question whether Perry is aware of how a crippling disease like cancer works. It does not go into a store, purchase firearms and ammunition, then have the ability to point at someone directly in the face and decide their fate. That is not quite how cancer works, Mr. Perry. Perhaps Perry would only advocate for gun reform if 55,000 people died each year. Maybe that is his limit. This irrational piece shows not only how divided America is on the arms issue but also how people are so willing to clutch at straws too so readily defend the second amendment.

      • The article “Black Lives Matter Doesn’t Really Care About Black Lives Lost Unless Group Can Blame Police” by Fox News’s Rob Smith claims that the Black Lives Matter movement does not care about black lives lost to anything but police brutality and abuse of power. Smith furthers his claim by stating that BLM only cares about black lives being lost when it helps further their agenda. “Yet we see no BLM rallies and marches for Black crime victims, including murder victims. Don’t those Black lives matter? Where are the posters demanding justice for these people? The truth is that the tragic loss of these Black lives can’t be used to further the radical BLM agenda, so the organizations ignores them,“ (Smith). In this claim Smith commits the strawman fallacy in which he misrepresents the Black Lives Matter argument that there needs to be severe repercussions for police brutality and systematic racism related abuse on black citizens by saying that the movement only cares to tackle those crimes and thus does not care about other crimes committed against black people or the general quality of living for black people in America. Smith’s argument hinges upon the intentional misunderstanding that the Black Lives Matter movement only cares to stop abuses of authority and does not actually care about Black Lives. It is illogical to assume that the BLM movement would put so much effort into stopping abuse of authority specifically against black people if they did not care about them in the first place. Smith fails to recognize that BLM prioritizing one relevant issue does not mean that it completely neglects another issue.

        https://www.foxnews.com/opinio.....-rob-smith

      • In the article “Tucker Carlson: Black Lives Matter is Working to Remake and Control the Country – and is Immune from Criticism,” Tucker Carlson of Fox News wrongly and offensively argues that Black Lives Matter is a toxic movement that has turned into its very own political party. Carlson begins by explaining that statistics have shown to have much more positive results when it comes to Black Lives Matter when compared to the presidential candidates. To support this, he includes statements from politicians on both sides showing their support for the movement. This is an outlandish conspiracy, contributing to even further division within the country. As the article continues, Carlson dramatically paints a pitiful picture trying to convey people making racist statements victims. In both of his examples, people are fired from their jobs for saying something related to the All Lives Matter movement. From the outside, this statement does not feel too far off. All lives do matter. But in the refusal to say the statement “Black Lives Matter,” specifically comes the dismissal of an entire history of oppression. To top it all off, Carlson spreads dangerous propaganda in defending police officers by inserting “black on black murder rates” into the article and calling members of the movement “thugs.” This clearly emphasizes his racist mentality. If reporters like Carlson continue to write articles with vicious claims against POC like this one, the division in our country will progress past the point of saving.

        https://www.foxnews.com/opinio.....-criticism

        https://www.stanforddaily.com/.....ainst-blm/

      • The article “Climate Change is Just Another Political Controversy” by Don Haskell dangerously diminishes the pressing severity of the fight against climate change. It is important to note that the author has no background knowledge or education in any scientific field at all, he is a retired attorney and former commissioner, giving no ethos to his, especially concerning since this is an opinion article. The first words of his article are “the climate change debate isn’t really about a change in the worlds climate… the earth has undergone millions of years of hot and cold weather cycles”. This claim is absurd in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of articles from much more credible sources. To begin an opinion piece which such an off-base and unsupported claim proves the author has more interest in expressing a salacious opinion than making sure it is correct one. Haskell argues in his article that the “federal government spent $37.7 billion in 2014 alone” on the climate change debate. Besides the fact this piece of data has no given source and is not cited, that the U.S. government spent $647.79 billion in military spending (marcotrends.net) and $3 trillion in health care spending (healthaffairs.org) in the same year. He states that “money can warp the opinions of climatologists who are funded primarily on government money” but this accusation then can be directed to any individual in any field that receives money from the government. His final jab at climate change is that “31,487 American scientists of all branches of science, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, signed …petition to the United States government”. What do scientists in all fields have to do with a claim that is very specific to a certain ecologic study? Why is 31,487 supposed to be an impressive number when according to fas.org, there were 6.9 million scientists in the U.S. in 2016, 4 years before the writing of this article? Haskell’s baseless and frankly ridiculous argument is dangerous and uninformed writing.

      • Tucker Carlson talks about the riots that broke out in some states during Black Lives Matter Protest. In this segment from Fox News, Carlson says that liberals are coming out in support of the riots in order to gain control of the government. He believes, “The most privilege in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from everyone else”. Carlson preaches that the “defund the police” movement’s end goal is to “eliminate all law enforcement for good”. Carlson even points out the removal of a texas ranger from the terminal at left field mimicking the liberals by saying, “A texas ranger is a cop and cops must be removed even when they are made of bronze”. Tucker Carlson is fearmongering. He is deliberately telling his viewers that the police are under attack and so is their way of living. He doesn’t even bother to discuss what defunding the police means. Instead, he exaggerates what the term would look like and paints a picture of crime in which he could not be more wrong.

      • In “Only Certain Black Lives Matter’ by Deborah Van Dyke, Dyke writes a letter to an editor opposing the BLM movement. The BLM movement is a movement intended to stop police brutality. Instead of refuting these statements however, Dyke spends her time discrediting the entire movement for not doing more black people. Dyke begins her letter by stating that “only certain black lives matter” to the BLM movement, and those lives are the one they can profit off of. She proceeds to discredit the movement for not doing anything to curb black on black crime rates and claims that more black people are killed by black people than by police officers. The issue with these statements is that BLM never claimed to be the hail mary for black people. The purpose of the movement is to bring attention to and hopefully change the discriminatory practices of police officers and the United States Justice system.

      • In the article “Why is it so offensive to say ‘all lives matter?”, Karen Stollznow writes that once the Black Lives Matter slogan was formed, there were some people that understood this phrase as “confrontational and divisive”. Stollznow writes that the Black Lives Matter movement excludes other races and that it would benefit everyone if we promote all lives are equal due to the fact that we are all “human beings”. However, I completely disagree with Stollznow because promoting all lives matter instead of Black lives matter diminishes the racism that occurs in the US. ALM ignores the inequality that has been occurring in America for many years.

        https://theconversation.com/wh.....ter-153188

      • The article “US gun laws: Why it won’t follow New Zealand’s lead” is a good article that argues against gun control. This article, argues that the political system is why America cannot pass a stricter gun control law. The NRA, which is a very powerful association, is always trying to stop the passing of gun control laws using its power and money.

        The article also argues that the constitutional law claimed that people have the right to possess guns. That is not a strong argument. What we believe in the past is not necessarily what we should believe in the future. Even the constitution has some flaws that need to be fixed.

      • https://www.theatlantic.com/po.....ff/481131/

        The article “American Sheriff”, published by The Atlantic, talks about Milwaukee Sheriff David Clark’s take on mass-incarceration and the criminal justice system. As an African-American pro-Trump supporter, he stands for conservatives values in the south and appeals to the people of Milwaukee by taking a pro-mass-incarceration stance. According to the article, “he believes that rehabilitation is ‘not something for the criminal-justice system to do’”, but rather believes that the APS (American Prison System) should be dolling harsh sentences to keep criminals off the streets and deter crime. He even argues (with some backwards logic) that mothers of children who turn to drugs on the streets are happy to know that their sons are kept somewhere safe when locked up. This manipulation is dependent on an ethos approach to his audience, who will in turn further support the notion that our criminal justice system needs to take a tougher approach as opposed to reforming individuals.

      • In her article “In Defense of Cancel Culture,” Shamira Ibrahim claims that cancel culture “a way for marginalized communities to publicly assert their value systems through pop culture,” and is therefore justified. However, this rather simple depiction of cancel culture fails to acknowledge the fact that it drowns out any opinions, effectively narrowing societal correctness and potentially drowning out the marginalized communities themselves. On top of this, cancel culture is simply ineffective when it comes to putting powerful institutions/celebrities in check, and does not bring about societal change when the people whose minds are supposed to change are instead in fear that they will be targeted.
        https://www.vice.com/en/articl.....ely-online

      • Tom Cotton, a United States senator, was sent to be an unbiased jury in the trial of Donald Trump for incitement of a riot. Cotton although understanding and acknowledging the horror that was January 6th, believes the former president should not have been impeached and should not be removed. I disagree with him. Cotton’s logic is completely flawed. In his statement, Cotton acknowledges the crime committed by the president but doesn’t believe that Trump should have consequences for the crime that he knows exists. He contradicts himself when he speaks of the sanctity of American rule and law then denounces impeachment in the same statement. If the law really were as sacred as he says Cotton would practice it in order to protect it. But he does not. You cannot have it both ways. However, that is what he implies he wants.

      • Matt Ridley, a journalist of primarily The Wall Street Journal, claims that there is no need to rush in our efforts to combat climate change, an opinion that is not only wrong, but harmful to our planet and humanity. He begins the article by stating that climate change “is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time”. The phrase “man-made” is correct, so shouldn’t the average person work to lower their carbon footprint and practice sustainability since they were the causation? The latter half of the sentence is more problematic in that it has no regard for future generations of this world, arguing that since these changes may not affect our lifetime, it doesn’t matter. His reasoning comes from data that shows “slower warming than predicted” and believes that we should use this ostensible extra time “to develop better energy technologies” instead of developing “policies to tackle climate change” since “they are having little effect”. Presenting the average person again, upon reading this article they will feel no sense of urgency to adapt their lifestyle to help fix the climate, of which will determine the state of the world for their generations to come. This message exudes a sense of procrastination and laziness in the effort to make the planet a healthier and better place.

        Ridley, Matt. “Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time”. Scientific American, 27
        Nov. 2015, http://www.scientificamerican.com.

      • In the article Why do people carry guns, the writer fails to portray her arguments. She starts off an article by stating that people need guns for certain reasons and later argues that guns play a dangerous role in our society. She should have started her article with her stance instead of starting with an article with “While there is no excuse to carry a gun, people say they carry it for different reasons.” This makes the reader automatically think that this essay is going to be about why guns should be allowed in the United States when the article’s main goal and purpose are to explain why guns should not be allowed in the United States. Also, when the author gives the reasons why people carry guns at the beginning of the article, the argument in my opinion is weak. She says people tend to have guns because of protection, fear, and peer pressure. I think her argument is just out of emotions instead of statistical and logical reasons. I think adding the second amendment somewhere at the beginning of the article would make her argument stronger and more convincing.

      • In the New York Post’s “These Black Lives Didn’t Seem to Matter in 2020” opinion piece, journalist Rav Arora argues that by focusing the Black Lives Matter movement only on police reform diminishes the importance of homicides within the black community that are devoid of police. While I do agree that all violence is equally important and that the high homicide rates within the black community should be addressed, the BLM movement is not just focused on police reform. Although the BLM movement was sparked by outrage over Treyvon Martin’s death, the motive of the movement is to recognize systematic racism as a whole, which includes the police force as well as other forms of American government. Additionally, this black-on-black crime narrative that Arora paints is very harmful, as it disregards why violence within black communities is so prevalent to begin with. His argument transpires into one where the larger problem is mainly the black community itself and moreover offers no solution. The true problem, which is what BLM addresses, is that America continues to employ a multi-century old system founded off of black suffering that has only decades ago begun fixing its oppressive nature, but very leisurely; people in positions of power still choose to overlook this, seeing today’s persecution as a black issue rather than an American one.

      • In the Vox article, “In Defense of Cancel Culture”, written by Shamira Ibrahim, Ibrahim takes the stance that “cancel culture” is an effective tool for marginalized groups to defend themselves and gives them a collective voice to punish offenders. Ibrahim quotes from communications strategist Camonghne Felix in which she states that “cancellation isn’t personal but a way for marginalized communities to publicly assert their value system through pop culture.” Although I agree that cancel culture can be effective for voicing concerns and addressing discrimination and hatred in society, I disagree in the aspect that it isn’t personal.

        I believe that cancel culture is very much so personal in that it calls people out on their mistakes and behaviors and forces them to address it. However, the real problem lies in the fact that many a times it doesn’t allow said offender to grow and develop from their mistakes. Obviously there are certain actions that are reprehensible and cannot be condoned at any point, but cancel culture doesn’t take that into consideration. Every mistake is critiqued the same and punished the same without distinction. This breeds to a dangerous new social environment where people are no longer given the social freedom to err and grow. Without an open platform for discussion there is no room for reeducation. Cancel culture silences the masses, but that doesn’t mean that hate becomes nonexistent, rather it just lives in the privacy of the mind without being challenged ever. This is not to say one should be able to spout hateful rhetoric freely, rather its more so that we need to allow people to make mistakes so that they’re given the chance to learn from it. If they chose to disregard and continue with their offensive action and behavior then that is another matter. In the end I do believe that cancel culture is a great tool to battle discrimination and hatred, however, I think we need to be more conscious of how we use it and the effect it has. Sometimes, people can be so blinded in their moral righteousness that they fail to even give a chance for the offender to atone for their offense.

      • In Jack Kelly’s article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled, “The facts don’t add up for human-caused global warming,” he discusses how although global warming skeptics may believe that humans have created some changes to the environment, they think that they have not done nearly enough damage to be concerned about. Kelly starts off his article by stating that in the first five months of 2014, the weather has been colder than it has ever been since 1888, claiming that “If ‘climate change’ alarmists got out more, they might have noticed.” This claim does not prove Kelly’s point of arguing against global warming, as climate change does not only involve warmer than normal weather but also colder than normal weather, invalidating Kelly’s reasoning. Furthermore, Kelly continues his argument by downplaying the importance of lowering our carbon footprint, stating that “the effect of greenhouse gases on climate is trivial.” Greenhouse gases are in fact a major contributor to global warming as they trap heat, causing the planet’s temperature to gradually rise. Kelly’s arguments in his article invalidate the sincerity of global warming, as he is informing his audience that climate change is not an issue that people should be concerned about, claiming that humans do not have control over the situation. This is a dangerous message to present as climate change continues to worsen and this article will only delay the initiations needed to help reverse the damage that has been done to the Earth.

        Kelly, Jack. “The facts don’t add up for human-caused global warming.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 29 May 2014, http://www.post-gazette.com/op.....1405290275.

      • In the article, “Why I’ve Never Believed in ‘Believe Women’,” Helen Lewis explains why she extremely dislikes the slogan “Believe women.” She also talks about the job of a journalist, and the struggle of properly writing about sexual harrassment and sexual assault. Lewis claims that this slogan, a broad truth, “tells us nothing about the merits of any individual case” and “this absolutism is wrong, unhelpful, and impossible to defend.” Lewis continues on to say that she understands that the slogan was for media coverage, which is what I find to be a flaw in her argument. Many slogans for serious topics like sexual assault are used as a way to spread awareness and attention. Despite it being short and perhaps “not true,” it serves its purpose by being in the public eye. For a movement where women’s voices are silenced and shut down, publicity is the very first step to be taken into justice. Furthermore, Lewis argues about the difficulty in publishing news regarding sexual assault, insisting that her skeptisism “look like hositlity.” However, although it is a valid problem in addressing this issue of journalism, it seems inexcusable to write in an aggressive tone and describe the slogan as “terrible” and a “trap” about a movement that serves to unify victims of sexual assault.

      • Larry Bell writes in a Newsmax article warning about the possibility of the Biden administration rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. His main argument consists of stating that other countries don’t meet their emission reductions and discussing job losses he associates with the phasing out of traditional energy. These are all valid concerns and any climate policy worth its own weight needs to address these, as ideas such as the Green New Deal tackle. The problem is, however, Bell treats these problems not as opportunities to address them but rather as opportunities to say addressing climate change isn’t worth it at all. When other countries avoid reducing their emissions, America ought to use its leverage as the world’s sole superpower and its power as one of the biggest markets to compel them to do so. We must acknowledge the side effects of switching to a green economy as Bell brings up, yes, but so too we must also acknowledge the side effects of not switching to a green economy and the effects of climate change which he fails to bring up even once. Disregard all the scientists and all the studies, which Bell swats all away under the term “Climategate,” the effects of climate change can be seen today. It’s no hoax that the Sahara is expanding; it’s no hoax that, due to increased water temperatures, fish have been moving habitats; it’s no hoax that the average global temperature has seen an increase since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century. Climate change does not care whether or not you believe in it or that it is manmade, and it will not go away if you just keep denying it.

      • In Brophy’s Student Newspaper, writers Reece M. Krantz and Chase L. Manson claim how social media could be considered beneficial for democracy. They claim how due to social media, there is another outlet for people to share their opinions and bring attention to causes. The authors claim that social media brings upon an onslaught of multiple perspectives. In fact, they strongly declare how “social media’s role in this was purely democratic; it raised awareness to the majority about a social or political injustice”. During that time, they called upon examples from Hong Kong’s for democracy and protests in Ferguson, MO, to reveal how through the use of social media people became more aware of the issue and stood together to fight for causes. While in some cases it may be true as mentioned above, however, as technology continues to advance, there is a limit to how much perspectives are actually shared. Due to the advancements in algorithms, information cocoons form. In turn, people only see content from social media that they are interested in. Thus, it causes people to become biased as they think everyone thinks the same way and are not aware of the other side. Granted, because the article was written six years ago, it means that the extent they believed in social media would vary from now. Because technology has been changing a lot recently, it results in the writers having outdated information.

      • In the Fox News article, “What Trump’s zero policy means for children separated from families at the border”, author Kaitlyn Schallhorn attempts to discredit the struggles children endure by explaining the current laws in place. She states that according to DHS, “children in HHS ORR care are given medical and mental health attention if needed, as well as educational programs”. These laws however do not ensure children of illegal immigrants will receive an education. Schallhorn fails to understand that these laws in place do not positively correlate with children’s education as these kids have trouble focusing on school when they live in constant fear of being separated from their parents. I believe this article does not do a great job because it provides the laws without providing the actual reality of immigrant children.

        https://www.foxnews.com/politi.....-at-border

      • In the article “The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement” by writer Heather Mac Donald, she asserts that the #MeToo Movement will set limitations on the diversity of gender and races across various categories of industries. She describes this effect caused by the #MeToo movement will be “sweeping and destructive” if all mainstream institution will start to conduct exquisite calculations of gender and diversity ratios when they hire people. Then, in order to persuade her readers, Mac Donald goes on to explain how white males are now disadvantaged in industries. However, simply presenting merely several examples of companies which are now criticized for being “entire white” and “all white males” doesn’t seem to be compelling enough to persuade readers to support her argument. Indeed, she even reveals her own discrimination towards women workers. Specifically, when she mentions the story of how companies like Windows and Hiltons are trying to help promote females and minorities in their own industries, she asserts their behaviors will end up with less qualified employees. By doing so, she puts women workers in an inferior state as they are “less qualified” than white male workers. Without presenting solid evidence, or even no evidence, Mac Donald merely brings panic to the audience of this article.

      • In my last response, I argued for the detrimental side of social media and specifically how economist Robert Frank used economic theories to illustrate its harm to society through spreading misinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, I couldn’t really find any impressive articles that can eloquently refute my previous argument. It seems to be common knowledge that social media does indeed spread misinformation and bring negative influences to our society.

        Nevertheless, I did manage to find one recent article that claims somewhat on the opposite spectrum. Laura argues that active consumption of social media is beneficial for mental health because “being clear on what we need and want to consume means we are spending less time on the content we don’t care about” based on the result of a study done by Dr. Lee Smith at Anglia Ruskin University. However, the author does not take the danger of active consumption into her account, and she ignored the fact that tech companies actually want people to actively seek out the content they enjoy for their algorithms to be effective. I strongly disagree that active use of social media is necessarily good for our mental health. In fact, that’s exactly how many conspiracy theory groups and extremist minority groups are formed nowadays: people inadvertently practice confirmation bias and find certain content on whatever niche idealogy they believe in. This can result in many harms to the well-being of individuals as they become more and more narrow-minded by enclosing themselves in their own echo chambers.
        Link: https://uk.style.yahoo.com/act.....48463.html

      • Maurizio Bifulco and Simona Pisanti highlight the use of cannabis throughout Europe and how it is slowly becoming legalized for medical use and for recreation use back in the US in Oregon and Washington. They clearly state their viewpoint that cannabis should not be legalized, is a palliative treatment, and that it has no therapeutic benefits. While this may be true for the research done back in 2015, current-day research has shown that THC has helped cure issues like insomnia, multiple sclerosis, seizures, and eating disorders like anorexia. While it is also a palliative treatment for some users there are medical benefits that come along with it that cannot be ignored. There are economic benefits to marijuana as well as medical benefits. Legalization will decrease the reliance on cartels as a source of cannabis and will add a much-needed regulation and tax. So along with medical benefits, there are also other economic benefits that both individuals and communities will benefit from.

        https://www.embopress.org/doi/......201439742

      • In the NYT’s article, “To Lower Drug Prices, Innovate, Don’t Regulate”, written by Paul Howard, he provides readers with alternative solutions on how to lower the costs of prescription drugs, instead of the solution of government regulation. He argues that “bureaucratic price manipulation would only hurt the sickest patients”. In this article, Howard isn’t arguing against the idea of lower prescription costs, but on how to do it. He argues for more competition in the market by modernizing the drug development process so more drugs are out there in the market, and he wants Congress to retool the entitlement programs for pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. Howard presents a strong argument in that he provides reasonable solutions that would usually work in other sectors of the market, but not when it comes prescription drugs.

        This argument is an argument I would agree with typically because I do think the government shouldn’t be so controlling over the economy, however, when it comes to drug prices, I do think the government needs to step in. Over the past couple of years, we haven’t seen drug prices get cheaper, but have instead spiked just for the means of profit. The government was created to protect the people and when the people are being exploited, it is the government’s job to step in and stop this. Typical capitalistic behavior when it comes to prescription drug prices have not worked because Big Pharma has been so successful in lobbying against any form of progress to lower drug prices.

      • In the article “Tucker Carlson: The great Texas climate catastrophe is heading your way,” Tucker carlson argues that the reason for Texas’s blackouts are caused by freezing renewable energy sources in the form of wind turbines. Don’t get me wrong, Carlson does a very good job explaining his view to narrow-minded readers. Just like we’ve been learning about in Rhetoric, each paragraph should take on a different, yet precise, argument. This article takes on the entire role of a paragraph: narrow focus yet split up into several paragraphs. The narrow focus is that wind turbines are bad. They freeze, kill birds, make noise, and take away from Texas’ natural resources: fossil fuels. “How would you like a massive power plant in your backyard humming and buzzing and chopping up birds?” Each paragraph takes about a different downside of wind turbines while never broadening the focus to any of the other causes for the blackout: an increase in demand. Not only does this article praise fossil fuels for their “reliance” in the cold, but it fails to note that a mere 13% of Texas’ electricity is from renewables. A quick search for a fact checking article reveals that the fossil fuel sources failed too. This was because cold weather made pipes, wells, and valves freeze (Reuters). In addition to the narrow minded focus, the sentences are purposely left short, and simple “It means failures like the ones we’re seeing now in Texas. That’s not a talking point, that is true. It’s science. So of course, they’re denying it.” Purposely being very vague and using words like “it” and “that” allow the reader to fill in his/her own thoughts. This is also used to disguise the lack of leverage by using nondescript, filler words. This is simmer to the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” There are so many aspects to making a place “great” that its lack of description is insanely effective. People input their own meaning into the slogan and thereby make it a personal definition which only deepens the connection one has. By only taking about one narrow topic, leaving out contradictory pieces of evidence, and writing to the reader’s emotion, Carlson is able to argue a false point.

        https://www.reuters.com/articl.....SKBN2AJ2EI
        https://www.foxnews.com/opinio.....atastrophe

      • In Joey Franklin’s OPINION article “Cancel Cultures Hidden Benefits,” he introduces an interesting argument as to why Cancel Culture may have some upside to it after all. Franklin presents the reader with evidence that backs both sides, although throughout the article. Franklin is precise in his message, and as the reader, you can see that although he does not agree with some of the extreme measures of Cancel Culture, like people losing their jobs, he does “think that getting called out on saying something offensive is a good way to get educated and be a better person.” While this statement may be true, more often than not, this so-called “constructive criticism” is replaced by people with personal attacks, which defeats the purpose of trying to help the person when you end up damaging them. All in all, it would be in the best interest of society to not have Cancel Culture; publicly shaming someone is not going to solve any problems whatsoever.

      • In The Guardian’s article, the author tackles a subject of climate misinformation across the widely used social media platform, Facebook. Facebook is available to anyone who signs up through an email and sets up a password, allowing easy access to a wide range of news and information. Although Facebook tries to “[use] factcheckers and [ban] false advertising”, this process was not efficient enough for the misinformation that spread all across the platform. Facebook continuously allows a profound number of users to spread their thoughts on climate denial. These injurious ads are paid through conservative groups and since Facebook is making a profit off of these ads, they turn a blind eye to the climate misinformation surfacing throughout its site.
        The fact that such a high-profile platform like Facebook can easily stop misinformation from spreading, yet chooses not to frustrates me. Yes, Facebook would be losing money by putting an end to these ads, but it would be advantageous to people who don’t have a particular stance on climate change. Spreading misinformation will lead to and has led to people believing that climate change is a hoax and not taking the appropriate measures needed to alleviate it. In order for the effects of climate change to be reversed, action has to be taken now, so false information about climate change is very detrimental to humanity.

      • In BBC’s publication “Black Lives Matter: From social media post to global movement”, the author does an impressive job of explaining the George Floyd situation and how that took the Black Lives Matter to “areas it had not reached”. Maqbool further argues that white people need how important of a role they play in this. I also agree with Maqbool when he mentions the number of people that are becoming more educated on this movement. From my personal experience, I began to realize the situation at hand and wanted to make a change by joining some protests and spreading awareness online.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53273381

      • In an article in Fox News, Tucker Carlson effectively discusses the fact that “immigration is not always good for our economy”. He first starts by explaining the opposition’s claims, which say that all immigrants are good and support our economy, and he even quotes multiple high-reaching officials of the opposite party to further prove his point. Once he’s presented this information, he then tells his own opinion- that the immigration system in America is “designed for the benefit of foreigners”, not to “help America”. The facts and statistics that he presents are very fascinating, and would most definitely captivate a reader if they found this article. Furthermore, Carlson uses an incredibly effective tactic in saying that the loss that America has received from them is “not their fault”, but is “our fault”, placing the blame on Americans instead, and making more people inclined to listen to him instead of outright deny his claims because he represents an opposing view. However, Carlson fails to sympathize with the countries that these immigrants come from, as he only looks at the negative impact that America receives, not the majorly positive impact that immigration has on the native countries. These countries would be in deep water if they didn’t get the remittances from immigrants in the Americas, and America definitely has a lot to give.

      • In the article “The American Prison System: It’s Just Business”, published by the Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, author L.B. Write argues that the American Prison System (APS) is facilitating aspects of the US economy by charging inmates for phone calls and minor violations. He also states that the US is benefiting from the low-wage prison work that inmates are contributing, such as making license plates and fighting fires. According to the article, each inmate makes the US $6,000-$14,000 for a whopping $74 billion made each year through mass incarceration. While I disagree with the article that people are not merely dollar signs to profit off of, it’s interesting to see why the US political system and criminal justice system are so slow to change; because it makes us richer.

        https://news.law.fordham.edu/j.....-business/

      • Richard Heinberg, in his article “Why Climate Change Isn’t Our Biggest Environmental Problem, and Why Technology Won’t Save Us”, questions the nature of the ecological crisis concerning climate change and global warming, by arguing that it results from systemic factors. Heinberg suggests that the environmental problem, which humanity is currently facing, has deeper roots, including our sociopolitical systems, the desire for economic growth, overpopulation, and other related occupations and interests. He argues that the technological approaches often offered by scientists, aiming at the overcoming of global warming, are not, in reality, effective. On the contrary, these solutions are said to be discussed in order to urge people to take action, without risking the possible neglect of such a serious issue, owing to the fear of the need of economic and political reformations. In fact, his ideas are based on the impression that the ecological crisis is deeply a moral rather than practical issue.

        Heinberg criticizes current environmental movements, due to the fact that their effort “fell short because it was not able to alter society’ s central organizing principle, which is also its fatal flaw: its dogged pursuit of growth at all cost.” This is undeniable, and a very splendid argument since its occurrence is accompanied by the industrial revolution. Also, the idea that the moral approach is the environmental movement’s strength is correct. However, even if it is not wise to entirely depend on technology as the ultimate solution, it is still needed, and it is a great way to influence common beliefs, exactly because people believe in its achievements. Even if not utterly effective, as a first step in combination with an underlying and gentle systemic change, it would effectively alarm people, and be impactful. Not to forget, technology is what made humanity aware of climate change and global warming in the first place.

      • In the article written by Anna North, she explains the views some people have against the #MeToo movement. For instance, when referring to the allegation against former Los Angeles Times reporter Jonathan Kaiman, one critic, Emily Yoffe, determined that it was the fault of the women that came out against him that caused Kaiman to lose his job. Although Kaiman had digitally penetrated a woman without her consent, Yoffe claimed that Kaiman was following a promising career path, and the women who had been sexually assaulted by Kaiman ruined his career. Another argument mentioned was in a report by New York investigator, Jane Mayer. Mayer tackled the question dictating whether it was right for actress Leeann Tweeden to be upset that Senator Al Franken mimed grabbing her breast. Mayer insisted that it wasn’t necessary for Tweeden to go public with her story, whereas her situation could have been dealt with better in private. North explains these arguments in a factual manner rather than with her personal opinion, which allows for a clear understanding of these perspectives. Even though these arguments oppose the #MeToo movement, they offer a controversial opinion that is important to recognize in regards to the movement itself.

        Although Yoffe and Mayer believed the women were in the wrong for their accusations, it’s never acceptable to blame the victim of a situation. As a result, their arguments are flawed due to their acceptance of sexual misconduct. Suggesting that the victim is liable for what happened to the predator, proposes the idea that sexual misconduct is acceptable, whereas it is definitely not. Mayer does advise that women deal with their stories in a private setting, however, there have been too many instances where women are not respected and are never granted justice because they’ve allowed people to diminish the significance of their story. Bringing issues, such as sexual misconduct, to a larger scale audience, assures that their stories will be heard, providing a better chance for justice.

        Link: vox.com/2019/8/27/20833421/me-too-sexual-misconduct-al-franken-kaiman

      • In his opinion piece through USA Today, Philip K. Howard presents an aggressive view on public unions. He first attacks police unions, stating that the strength and political power police unions possess makes it impossible to hold individual officers accountable. He presents the example of Derek Chauvin, the officer that murdered George Floyd in Minneapolis during 2020. The murder “touched off protests around the country” and had a terrible effect on race relations around the country. Howard then uses this situation to attack the power of police unions, stating that Chauvin “likely would have been terminated or taken off the streets if police supervisors in Minneapolis had the authority to make judgements about unsuitable officers”, citing 18 complaints filed against Chauvin and a reputation for being “tightly wound”. Here, the author is not incorrect. Chauvin should never have been on the streets; in fact, he should never have been a policeman at all. The lack of accountability in police forces is a major issue, and it is one that is exacerbated by the power of police unions. Just recently, in my hometown, Chelmsford Massachusetts, the police union got into a spat with the town manager about their contracts. This nearly resulted in the town manager losing his job; signs went up around town saying “Bye Bye Paul”, the Select Board voted not to renew his contract before narrowly voting to extend it months later, and his position is still unsafe as of today. Police unions do have too much power; they can take over a town and do so solely in the interest of more lucrative contracts for themselves, whether or not there is space in the budget.

        However, Howard subsequently came for teachers’ unions, and did so extremely aggressively and nearly entirely incorrectly. He attacked teachers’ unions for “refusing to teach” during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the CDC’s decision that schooling was safe and the reopening of private schools to attack public school teachers’ unions for “harming millions of students” by “refusing to allow teachers to return to work for a year” and “impeding our ability to reopen the economy” by preventing parents from returning to work as they returned to their position of primary caregiver with no school to ship their children off to every day. However, it is ridiculous to equate teachers’ unions to police unions. For one, teachers are paid table scraps compared to police officers, and teachers’ unions are necessary if we ever want to empower teachers to receive more wages. Teacher’s wages and quality of education often go hand in hand, and collective bargaining is a great way to support teachers in their quest for higher wages, which would in turn attract better candidates to the field, boosting the quality of education. Additionally, Howard uses a quote by Lori Lightfoot, the current mayor of Chicago, in his attack on teachers, stating that “after 80 meetings trying to cajole teachers back to work” that Lightfoot’s takeaway was that the teachers would “like to take over… running the city government”. This is an absurd thing to say, and it’s forwarded by an unpopular mayor with an atrocious record. She was elected as a lukewarm safety candidate endorsed by many establishment forces including the Chicago Sun-Time and the Tribune, despite her record of failure in police accountability and protection of the lower-class Black community. She also has had a history of antagonism with the Chicago Teachers’ Union, making taking her at her word on teachers’ unions farcical. In all, while police unions are a problem that need to be addressed, it is absurd to put teachers’ unions on that same level of problematic, and actively detrimental to the quality of education in this country.

      • From Gorgias:
        But if it is a disease of human origin and a fault of the soul, it should not be blamed as a sin, but regarded as an affliction.

      • From MLK:

        Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

      • From Gorgias:
        The persuader, like a constrainer, does the wrong and the persuaded, like the constrained, in speech is wrongly charged.

      • Georgias: Some who have seen dreadful things have lost their presence of mind in the present time; thus fear extinguishes and drives out understanding.

      • MLK: “Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.”

      • From MLK: “This momentous decree is a great beacon light of hope for millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice.”

      • MLK:
        No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satis­fied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream

      • MLK:
        Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and the winds of police brutality.

      • from MLK
        ” I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heart of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed in to an oasis of freedom and justice”

      • Encomium of Helen: “The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies. For just as different drugs dispel different secretions from the body, and some bring an end to disease and others to life, so also in the case of speeches, some distress, others delight, some cause fear, others make the hearers bold, and some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion.”

      • I Have A Dream…: “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

      • I Have a Dream…: “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satis­fied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

      • I Have A Dream…: “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”

      • “I Have a Dream” – MLK
        “One hun­dred years later the life of the Negro is still badly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination”

      • From MLK:
        “Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation through the sun-lit path of racial justice”

      • From MLK:
        “…America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds’.”

      • From MLK:
        “One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

      • From MLK:
        “This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice.”

      • From Marin Luther King Jr.
        “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

      • From MLK Speech:
        “So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

      • From MLK:
        “And that is something that I must say to my people who stand on the worn threshold which leads into the palace of justice.”

      • From MLK JR.

        “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the founda­tions of our nation until the bright days of justice emerge”.

      • From Gorgias:

        Man and woman and speech and deed and city and object should be honored with praise if praiseworthy and incur blame if unworthy, for it is an equal error and mistake to blame the praisable and to praise the blamable.

      • MLK: “With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.”

      • From MLK: “Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality.”