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.
Great subject this week!
ReplyDeleteI, too, love it when all my classes come together and the result is a gigantic, eluminating "AHA!" moment. Going back to one of the articles we read for 304 earlier in the semester, I think it's a shame that people fail to see the connection between fields of study and even different departments in any college, much like ours. I'm glad you chose to write this blog, showing a connection betweeen philosophy and rhetoric, and even throwing in a little pop culture reference/critique as well. When you do decide to stop and smell the roses, it will be well earned, my friend.
I think hard facts should over power a witness too. You can never tell if a witness is being completely trutful, so it doesn't matter if they were there to see what happened or not.
ReplyDelete