Can You Smell the Inaccuracy?

Rhetorical Activity 8.2

I love it when my classes intersect! I recently wrote a paper on the very subject of trusting the senses to provide evidence. There are two schools of thought, Materialism and Idealism, which attempt to answer this metaphysical question. The first believes that everything that is real is that which can be sensed using the empirical evidence of the five senses. Idealism, however, states that all we can prove to be real is the perceptions our minds receive.

Materialists hold that “there is only one valid source of knowledge about the world around us: sense perception” (Velasquez 145).  Velasquez continues, “Any ‘things’ we cannot perceive with our senses – such as souls, god, or any other spiritual ‘realities’ – cannot be said to exist at all” (Velasquez 145).

Idealists believe, according to Manuel Velasquez in the text, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, “The universe is not matter, but only mind and idea” (151). As Velasquez explains, “Because perceptions and sensations can exist only in the mind, it follows that every object must exist only the mind” (Velasquez 153).

Our book tells us, "Rhetors should never accept facts at face value" (Crowley 281). In this sense, I think it would be unwise, no matter whether you adopt the Materialistic or Idealistic viewpoint, to simply believe and trust in the senses to provide "truth." Senses, in many situations, are too subjective to be trusted. A person who is feeling a very strong emotion of any kind, likewise called "passion," may have very unreliable perceptions or memories of a certain event that took place during this period. Think crimes of passion - people can claim temporary insanity in such instances. Wouldn't something similar be true for witnesses to such crimes? Even if the witness believes he or she is telling the truth, external forces can alter the senses as the mind perceives the stimuli.

Our book also mentions, "Today rhetors often assume that whatever is written down and published is accurate and trustworthy, since, in a sense, it represents someone's testimony about something" (Crowley 267). I have two quick examples to leave you with: Wikipedia, and the Twilight series. I would hope that Wikipedia would be self-explanatory. The Twilight series though, as I read through it, was riddled with grammar, consistency, and even spelling ("stoppd" instead of stopped, for an example) errors. Without establishing this kind of ethos, can we really assume that an author's "published" work is credible and accurate?

Velasquez, Manuel G. Philosophy: a Text with Readings. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth,

(2008): 145-165. Print.

To: Dr. Euthanasia

Hey fool!

I saw you speak last Thursday about putting old people to sleep. What’s the word for that? Anyways, I think your argument sucked. How can you possibly say that we should just kill all the old people in hospitals and nursing homes? I’ve never even heard of this topic before, and I’ve never heard you speak before, but I still thought the whole thing was bogus. I mean, who gave you the right to decide this kind of thing? Did you think about what this would do to someone like me – someone who actually cares about other people? The fact that you say that ALL people deserve a choice to live or die, well that’s just not right. Some people have to get these things decided for them. It’s just the way society works. You should really think about shutting up (or at least not speaking publically) about something as important as this.

Signed,

Igor Ignorance

Did you notice lack of/problems with:

·         Lack of “doing homework”

·         Lack of “securing goodwill”

·         Utter ignorance

·         Inappropriately informal language

·         Word size

·         Qualifiers

·         Punctuation

·         Logical fallacies

Chapter 7: You Make Me Angry

People say that you should always avoid two thins in conversation to avoid conflict: religion and politics. Well, what about cloning, homosexuality, Darwinism, euthanasia, gun control, terrorism, extra-terrestrial life, and last, but certainly not least, education? Surely, all of these topics are going to create some kind of emotional response, and in most cases, depending on how the rhetor approaches the topic, of course, will be anger. The best way to begin is with a well-placed enargeia:

Take a trip to your local zoo and look around you. There is a chimp sitting in a cage, simply for entertainment’s sake. You can feed him, and he has been taught to smile at you afterwards. He may know a few tricks, and may be able to turn over or jump when instructed by a zookeeper, and at his most intelligent stage, understand a few words of sign language or figure out a puzzle in order to get to the treat he desires. However, he is  by no means intelligent. Looking into this animal’s face, however, is simply a look at yourself a few million years ago.

However, the well-trained and responsible rhetor is able to construct an appeal to more than anger, the easiest emotion to appeal to. They may use their skills to appeal to their audience’s sense of anger, love, hate, fear, shame, compassion, pity, indignation, envy, joy, and hope.

What about an appeal to fear concerning cloning?

You walk through the main entrance of the local mall, searching for a specific shirt that you saw in a newspaper ad this weekend. It should only take five minutes, which is good, since you don’t like the feeling of being cramped in the crowds that always exist in the mall. It makes you anxious. The store is just past the food court, and you decide to stop for a smoothie. The line is long, and you’re frustrated before you reach the counter. You start to tell the person behind the register that you would like a raspberry-banana twist when you suddenly stop. This person has your face. You start to think about the identical-twin-separated-at-birth scenario, when you see their nametag. Their name is the same as yours, and the small freckle you have above your lip? It’s there on their face, staring back at you like the ugly truth. You forget all about your smoothie and run, as fast as you can, back to your car, never looking back.

Or, perhaps, if it’s more your style, an appeal pity and euthanasia?

Your eighty-nine year old grandmother lies in the hospital bed after she has broken her hip for the second time. She has been told that she will never walk again, though that was before her Alzheimer’s got so bad that she couldn’t even remember the names of her children. She tells you that she is in incredible pain when she is coherent enough to express how she is feeling. The hospital has her connected to many machines to keep her alive, and the bills are becoming larger every day. Her power of attorney is in your hands, and you must decide if you will have her continue this existence until she can no longer be resuscitated or allow her to ease the pain with the “inhumane” procedure of euthanasia.