"Happiness is More Like Knowledge Than Like Belief."

As much as motivational speakers would like to convince us, we cannot wish ourselves happy. The "power of positive thinking" only goes so far in the face of reality. In the New York Times Opinion pages, Professor David Sosa examines what makes happiness the experience we so crave, in the article "The Spoils of Happiness." This article, beyond being incredibly compelling, also shows application of several concepts we have discussed previously in this course. Most notable among these is the application of Harris's move of 'forwarding' and Fahnstock and Secor's stasis construction.
It is evident that Sosa will be forwarding and engaging with another text from the outset of this article; he opens with a passage from Robert Nozick. This passage offers a dystopian view of happiness- contrived and controlled by machines so that we are 'plugged in' to happiness at all times. Sosa offers an extension of this passage, simplifying the hypothesis offered by Nozick: "Happiness is not a state of mind." This is an extension of what was offered originally, and thus follows Harris in his view of forwarding, wherein a

"writer forwards a text by taking words, images or ideas from it and putting them to use in new contexts... you test the strength of its insights and the range and flexibility its phrasings. You rewrite it through reusing some of its key concepts."

Sosa does this through his (previously stated) thesis concerning happiness, and by moving the discussion of Nozick's "plugged-in" thought experiment to real world applications; he simplifies it into scenarios with easy decisions to those more difficult. By doing this, Sosa offers a more compelling case of what happiness might be, if not simple experiences or an easily defined mindset. This extends it to his own point of the article: That happiness is not something we can control, and it takes "intellectual courage" to accept this stark reality.

In addition, Sosa operates in a lower stasis to begin with, before ultimately jumping to a higher stasis. Sosa begins by purportedly asking simply "what is happiness" before moving onto a higher stasis of precedence and analogous situations: would choosing to be artificially happy ('plugged in') be a decision as easy as whether to save a pencil or a group of people from a fire? Would one want to be happy- ecstatic- in the way a drug addict is frenzied and ecstatic while high? The reader has hopefully been led to answer these questions easily- that of course, happiness that is contrived is not really happiness, nor something seen as desirable. This ultimately passes value judgments on the worth of happiness.

David Sosa asks the reader to examine themselves and their world, asking us to look at what we consider happiness and the value we place upon the concept. He shows that happiness is not something always mutable, and gives reasons for why this might be better than being on a constant cloud of cheerfulness.

A Dystopian Love Story

Upon the recommendation of a friend, I recently picked up the 2008 Pixar film, “Wall-E”. Expecting a simple children’s story, I was surprised to find a story that fairly screamed ‘sustainable public discourse’. This was delightful and only mildly aggravating (after all, I was not expecting to spend my weekend film flick to evoke such analysis; I certainly irritated my movie companion by invoking writing theory at every possible opportunity.) Mostly, however, in this film, I found a stunning story that closely corresponded with the themes of this course.
This film begins on a world made completely inhospitable by the wanton waste and pollution. Wall-E, the delightful (if mechanical) main character has been doing the same work for the previous 700 years; a machine cleaning up the earth abandoned by man. Finding a single, solitary plant one day, Wall-E collects it. In time, Wall-E falls in love with a modern girl- er, machine, EVE, sent with the strictly programmed mission of finding out of plant life still exists on earth. Once she finds the plant, she’s whisked back to the new humanity: a world contained on a single space station, with every movement mechanically controlled, with all thought automated. In Wall-E’s quest for his love, he changes the controlled environment and renews some of the basic characteristics of humanity- things like free-thought and curiosity. With this, humans are forced to take responsibility for the ruination of the earth. Granted, this is all explained in a much more lighthearted fashion.
The lighthearted nature of this film is what creates its persuasion, however. The lax attitude of humans and their ability to run away from the mess they have created on earth is portrayed in a comical manner; the view could easily see the same story repurposed into a darkly cynical story where humans are exiled to space and machines have taken over the earth. Thus, it could reasonably be argued that this film operates in the sphere of daily persuasion, or even propaganda. Rational for this can be seen in the appeals to tropes it makes (Killingsworth) and the very evident oversimplification that takes place through the film (Lazere).The work of robots becomes a metaphor for the actions of human relations: by the work of robots on the earth and the humans’ new home in space, humans need no longer put any effort into anything- even interpersonal relationships. The effort that Wall-E has to put in to win the ‘love’ of his robot counterpart shows that work is truly what defines humanity.
The exaggerations of the film make it comical, but also make a powerful political statement. As Lazere points out, one of the fallacies within oversimplification is the use of extremes in the film- humans are so coddled so as to no longer need to walk or dress themselves, and robots have the ability to control everything. This makes free thought, if not outdated, at least irrelevant. In addition, the film makes grand use of irony. By not doing anything to save our planet now, humans soon have to do nothing at all for themselves and the essence of humanity suffers.
These overwhelming uses of irony and the metaphors that this film portrays show it to be much more than a simple children’s story. Wall-E is a persuasive film exemplifying the extreme dangers that lie ahead if humans continue on a path of inaction.

Short Assignment 4

Andrew Linzey's article for AV Magazine, "Why Animals Deserve Special Moral Solicitude", displays the form of a classical oration, as discussed in Winterowd's argument "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse." The classical oration, made up of the "exordium to gain the audience's attention, narratio to state the speaker's case, confirmatio to prove that case, reprehensio to refute the opponent's case and peroratio to sum up" (Winterowd 40). According to Winterowd, having this arrangement creates a form that ultimately can help to create meaning. Linzey's article takes shape in the matrix of these devisions. His exordium, the hook he uses to gain the readers attention frames the article almost as a court case- asking whether it is morally repugnant to deliberately inflict suffering. Further, he states his case with the attributes of animals- "Non-consenting, inarticulate, innocent, and vulnerable beings deserve special moral solicitude" (Linzey 8). He further proves the case- confirmatio- by authorizing his statements through theological sources. In perhaps his most compelling argument, he refutes those who argue for animal testing with the question of whether the ends (of animal testing) justify the means (of animal suffering) (Linzey 9). He ultimately concludes his argument against animal testing by having changed the question; he moves from "is animal testing acceptable?" to the much more difficult "can you justify the moral repugnance that is animal testing for your own interests?" Linzey's demonstrates a clear use of the classical oration organization. In this, he creates a strong argument with a very clear persuasive purpose.

For my historical-analysis, I would like to examine the activity of reading. Information is available at an unprecedented ease: databases allow instant access to almost any article, classic literature is available online, authors can interact with readers immediately (as a recent Twitter conversation with one of my favorite authors recently proved). However, libraries are seeing a decline in use and bookstores are bemoaning the lack of sales, and (according to a poll of my floor lounge) the time students previously used to read for pleasure is being eclipsed by other, largely internet based, activities. In the information age, I'd like to examine the decline in the activity of reading for pleasure and how this act has changed, both between classes and between generations. I would be arguing that the decline or change in reading is a relatively current and unprecedented phenomenon. The most compelling genre to argue this in may be upon the issue of conflicting ideals- similar to Kaufer's conflict levels.

Levels of Conflict workshop

Question 1:

In high school, I was quite involved in the theatre and drama department. Therefore, the final performance of my senior year was of incredible importance to me. The final show was a one-act festival, and everyone was able to chose their own scenes; I chose a Woody Allen sketch entitled, "Death Knocks". As the title suggests, it was a bit macabre, but there was little that was offensive about it- in fact, everyone at rehearsals thought it was hilarious. I thought that it was relatively innocuous. Until the first night of the show, that is. My mother, a staunch, fundamentalist Christian walked out during the middle of my scene (I found this out after the fact). She objected to the role, for at one point my character cried "Jesus", out of frustration. Of course, I was quite hurt by this, since I found nothing wrong with it (being of the agnostic inclination). If examined through Kaufer's levels of disagreement, it lies on a level 4- disagreement levels that usually require negotiations or complex solutions. I, fundamentally, had little value or opposition to 'using the Lord's name in vain', whereas my mother took strong offense, since she holds her faith very, very strongly. Her values were not able to come to terms with my own values; it was hard to persuade either one of us from our positions- mine, that words were simply words; hers, that names carry intense emotional meaning. We never particularly resolved the conflict; to satisfy her, I took the exclamation out of the second performance, but that was a concession on my part, not a solution.

Question 2:

In Robert Bullards's discussion on how race affected the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, he draws heavily on history; first alluding to the anthrax scare, wherein mostly white senators were notified the same day of the occurrence. He further speaks about the actions of the government response to Hurricanes Betsy and Alicia. In all of these cases the level of racism was astounding. However, he speaks about these things addressing the stasis of cause, not the stases of definition (speaking of the definition of what racism is), nor value (how much of an evil is this racist response). What is most interesting is that Bullard does not speak of this in terms of policy- what the government should-morally or legally- to eliminate such responses. He does this, because to argue in terms of policy or procedure would be delving into a level 5 conflict of morals and inequality. By arguing in a lower stases, he correspondingly keeps the discussion in a lower conflict level, where a solution might actually be negotiated.

Question 3:

In Mario Savio's "End of History" speech, he makes several allusions to other literature and popular culture things that his audience would likely be familiar. He compares what is happening-the sit in at Sprout Hall- to the protests occurring in Mississippi. Savio further makes an assertion of the fundamental assumption of the university as a world within a world. With the former assumption, he is countering the latter. By comparing the university students' actions to the nationwide actions, he is showing that the university is not an insular space. The latter analogy assumes that the university is a microcosm, involved in itself but not involved in the world as a whole. Savio is instead connecting the university to the global world.

In Defense of Books

As any student procrastinating from homework would attest, reading on Facebook is somehow easier and more entertaining than a biology textbook; it is simple to read lines and lines of status updates and relationship changes. This trivial information is easy to comprehend and quickly loses meaning. While Facebook is a far cry from a novel (though, they both have a similar amount of drama), it is an apt illustration for the ease (and lack of permanency) that reading on a screen has versus the more laborious reading of the actual printed word. In "The Future of Reading", Jonah Lehrer's article for Wired web-magazine, he argues that, despite the immutable march towards digitalization of books, there is a distinct loss of effort on the part of the reader.

Lehrer's article is written for a tech-savvy audience, and assumes that the audience is fairly familiar with scientific processes. He writes for a diverse audience that may be as familiar with reading lab reports as web-zines. Therefore, he adopts a distinctly scientific bent in his writing style, making use of specific arrangement while making use of the stases for his own purpose. By doing this, his argument can be read in a more scientific way, and thus gains credibility with his audience.

By saying that Lehrer makes use of the stases does not mean that he adopts a rigid style dictated by each of the stases: fact, definition, cause, value, and policy. He manipulates the ordering to suit his purpose more effectively, beginning with the stasis of fact: "the future of books is digital"; ascends up the stases process to value: digital books are easy; and finally moves onto causal and policy suggestions.

He begins with providing an analogous situation: books are like the FM radio, quaint and cute, but not particularly practical or any more widely used. This gives legitimacy to his earlier statement of fact; like the radio, books are being replaced rapidly by a newer better technology- technology that Lehrer objectively refers to as nothing short of easy and brilliant.

As Lehrer moves onto a statement of value, however, we get a clearer picture of his feelings of books on screen- perhaps it is too easy. He justifies this statement of value with a causal claim of why it is quite so much simpler to read a sentence on screen versus on paper. It is objectively easier to read on typed words on screen than it is to read smudged handwriting, due to the neurological pathways of our brain. The ventral neural highway is responsible for the easy, automatic reading of a written word. A secondary way to read, though, is one that is slower, but more meaningful. This is when the reading pathway used is the dorsal stream, which forces conscious attention to what is being read. This is much less automatic and slower.

Lehrer uses this causal claim to move to his final stases: a policy suggestion. While never suggesting that a mass Kindle-burning, he offers a suggestion to re-engage the dorsal pathways of the brain: make texts more difficult to read. He says of e-readers, "I'd love for them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult [...] Our eyes need to struggle. [...] Only then will we process the text a little bit less unconsiously, with less reliance on the ventral pathway. We won't just scan the words- we will contemplate their meaning." He offers a concrete policy suggestion that is supported by his earlier claims of cause and value.

Lehrer's article gains legitimacy and value by his use of the stases. Instead of merely establishing his a policy suggestion, he works up to it, causing the reader to see the value of his suggestion. He uses the stases to give his claim a factual base, add value to his words and finally to offer a solution. Though, one doubts that Kindle will ever offer the option of smudged ink or faded text- and certainly will never offer complimentary musty book smell- Lehrer makes a valid, well supported argument for the printed word. Even further, his article shows the value of struggling with passages of text over the ease of a 140 character Twitter update, for sometimes it is the difficulty that makes a text meaningful.

At the Edge of a Precipice

If the Oxford English Dictionary is to be believed, a community is simply “a body of people or things viewed collectively.” However, in Studs Terkel’s article, “Community in Action”, recorded for NPR’s “This I Believe” series, this definition is challenged and extended dramatically. At the very core of Terkel’s belief is the rejection of community is as a passive body (as the OED definition would imply), and instead the emphatic assertion that community is something alive and active. This article reads not as a mere statement of his tenet, but rather as Terkel’s call for revolution in its most classical sense- the return to an older (and wiser) foundations of an active community, instead of a rejection of the word.

This argument is made manifest, first and foremost by the context of this article. Terkel first invokes the audience's trust, establishing ethos with the readers (or listeners, as this case might be), by affirming that this manifesto is a belief personal to him. He uses pathos to draw establish a connection, with a vignette that underlies his fundamental beliefs. Terkel himself is an expert, of sorts, on beliefs- he recorded countless stories in his quest to document the oral history of the 20th century. Terkel's belief carries the weight of trust- a country that has trusted itself to tell their stories to this man, now ready to receive his response in kind.

His story is one from the Great Depression, involving an all too familiar scene- a family left homeless- and Terkel's witness to the community, each making use of his own personal skills, replacing the family back into their flat. This story is one of hope, but even more so, it is an invocation to the communities of 2005 to return to this action.

Terkel tells his story to an audience that is similarly world weary as those families of the Great Depression, for 2005 was the beginning of what is now (somewhat ironically) called the Great Recession. In 2005, the country was beginning to see the full extent of the difficulties that the modern financial crisis would bring- home foreclosures, job losses, and other such horrors. A modern community stands on the same ledge as the community that hedges Terkel's beliefs, and is faced with the same questions: To separate, leaving each to fend for themselves, or to come together and create something more powerful. Terkel argues for the latter.

Terkel, does not merely ask the reader to consider his own story, but also summons the views of several other trusted figures in American history- Einstein, who acts as an acute observer of Western antipathy towards groups, and Thomas Paine, who affirms Terkel's view of the necessity of an active and thriving community. The use of these figures is an act of logos, adding reasoning to why the audience should consider Terkel's belief.

Terkel's article does not force the reader to establish "right" or "wrong" beliefs, but does ask his audience to consider this as epideictic rhetoric. Terkel addresses an audience that might foresee a crisis as terrifying as the Great Depression and asks them to consider where they could go from here. He offers an alternative to an "each to their own" mentality, arguing convincingly that no single person- no matter how intelligent or skilled- can hope to achieve as much as and active and unified community.