"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.