Rhetoric and Ideology Project
The project that I did here was a written op-ed designed to show the different forms of environmentalism (those different then what is regularly talked about) and as well show the reader what my opinions on it where. In the paper (which will be linked below) I discussed a few topics that I thought the reader may have not heard before. Such as the link between refrigeration and the harm that it has caused local economies as well as the environment because of its ability to allow overfishing. Another one was the possibility of immigration control and isolationist policies as a means of environmentalism, given its ability to cut down on the travel industry. I also wanted public infrastructure in the way of trains to be expanded upon to cut down on cars and finally I just wanted more family farms and for that to make a comeback. Generally though my arguments consisted of a anti-industrial and anti-urbanization and harboring back on my original point I wanted to show people that environmentalism isn't just shopping at whole foods.
Now that I have written this paper it has somewhat shaped my views on the matter, not politically mainly because in my opinion this is not a political matter both sides have their own views on environmentalism from bleeding heart liberals to fascists (eco-nationalists to eco-fascists). When I started on this paper though I started with much more extreme influence, Edward Abbey and that sort and though the finish paper references these people It is no longer the main driving point that they were to begin with. The final form is now much more focused on Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola that even though he is still a fairly radical figure, he is leaps and bounds more agreeable than Abbey. With the focus of the paper shifting over to Linkola I did a lot more research on him even with my background with his book "Will Life Prevail" I learned a good amount of facts about him as well as his philosophies. This gave me a better understanding of his background and what he was really for.
When it came to the use of rhetoric I first had to begin to understand the basic principles behind it. First understanding Logos was a good start, the logic behind things that generally appeal to analytic people say those in STEM fields. Then it was Pathos which appealed to people that are emotional and empathetic to other people's problems and emotions (the opposite of Howard Roark). Finally Ethos, the reputation of the speaker or in this case the writer and if people can trust and respect their opinions. On ideology though my background and history with this topic was already quite strong due to my research into philosophy specifically the German Metaphysicians and ideology is a big part of that, through Kantian ideology or other such things I developed a good idea for what ideology generally is.
How I believe Rogerian rhetoric could be helpful is by first taking a look at the state of civil discussion in America at this current time. It has become a sort of mesh of anger and echo-chambers of people not wanting to communicate with othersides, I believe this has to do with the fact that both sides believe to have a sort of superiority over the other. Liberals believe that Republicans are all hateful and racist individuals and Republicans believing that all liberals will run this country into the ground and impose some socialist rule. This sort of division between the two parties has had drastic consequences for the everyday person whose life is now riddled with this sort of political mumbo jumbo. Rogerian rhetoric if implemented would help the discussion go further and be a lot more smoother, compromises would be found and the spirit of American speech would be reinstated.
Now that I have written this paper it has somewhat shaped my views on the matter, not politically mainly because in my opinion this is not a political matter both sides have their own views on environmentalism from bleeding heart liberals to fascists (eco-nationalists to eco-fascists). When I started on this paper though I started with much more extreme influence, Edward Abbey and that sort and though the finish paper references these people It is no longer the main driving point that they were to begin with. The final form is now much more focused on Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola that even though he is still a fairly radical figure, he is leaps and bounds more agreeable than Abbey. With the focus of the paper shifting over to Linkola I did a lot more research on him even with my background with his book "Will Life Prevail" I learned a good amount of facts about him as well as his philosophies. This gave me a better understanding of his background and what he was really for.
When it came to the use of rhetoric I first had to begin to understand the basic principles behind it. First understanding Logos was a good start, the logic behind things that generally appeal to analytic people say those in STEM fields. Then it was Pathos which appealed to people that are emotional and empathetic to other people's problems and emotions (the opposite of Howard Roark). Finally Ethos, the reputation of the speaker or in this case the writer and if people can trust and respect their opinions. On ideology though my background and history with this topic was already quite strong due to my research into philosophy specifically the German Metaphysicians and ideology is a big part of that, through Kantian ideology or other such things I developed a good idea for what ideology generally is.
How I believe Rogerian rhetoric could be helpful is by first taking a look at the state of civil discussion in America at this current time. It has become a sort of mesh of anger and echo-chambers of people not wanting to communicate with othersides, I believe this has to do with the fact that both sides believe to have a sort of superiority over the other. Liberals believe that Republicans are all hateful and racist individuals and Republicans believing that all liberals will run this country into the ground and impose some socialist rule. This sort of division between the two parties has had drastic consequences for the everyday person whose life is now riddled with this sort of political mumbo jumbo. Rogerian rhetoric if implemented would help the discussion go further and be a lot more smoother, compromises would be found and the spirit of American speech would be reinstated.
industrialization_and_environmentalism.pdf | |
File Size: | 78 kb |
File Type: |
personal_connection.pdf | |
File Size: | 182 kb |
File Type: |
Your Life on Earth, Philosophy.
Your Life on Earth was technically a self reflection on your time involved with participating in the world/society that you find yourself in. The self reflection involved general things such as Ethics, Morals, and ideologies that encompass your views on the world, examples of these could include Transcendentalism, Existentialism, and Absurdism these being only a short list of what is out there fully but gives an idea on the type of topics we are working on. So, through this project we began to write on our thoughts and philosophies that were beginning to develop through exploration of these topics, I did some of my own research (for better or worst) and found a vast quarry of information that I worked to place into my own philosophy or really just the way that I view life, something that differs for so many people. The direction I took this project was very weirdly pieced together, not in a negative way but that is just the best way to put it. I wrote a paper earlier about Deleuze and Guattari and the relationship that Chris McCandless has to a body without organs, I read foucault and attempted to understand postmodernism, I used Dostoevsky's book Notes From Underground to understand the existentialist problem, and all in all I put a lot of thought into it and it is something that even previously I had put a lot of thought into it. oddly, at the end though I really began to take inspiration from unlikely sources such as performance art, the Moomins, and the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper even going as far to think of landscape as a form of depiction of thought. At the end though something was screaming at me, though I can read Kant and fight through Hegel (coming out on the losing side) I just ran into something I could not shake and that was what was applicable about any of this? You can say that it was pragmatic lense that I took with philosophy and the art towards the end, practically trying to reject the things that I was caught up end for so long, that wasn't the case though. It was more of a loss of reason, I can read, understand, not understand, and discuss these concepts but it is someone else's perception of the world so for my own philosophy, my own life I would have to make my own and that would begin with looking past what was done before for a short while.
What have I learned through all this though, well I did a lot of side research that I can get into to, so lets start. Philosophical Vagabond is a term that I find really nice (as it is pleasant sounding and the meaning behind is nice) and it is a big part of why I included Moomin into my paper and art because of Snufkin. On top of being a fun little character of the series he holds ideologies that I agree with like his need to not have much except what he likes not to over complicate your life with a whole lot of stuff that you really do not need at the end of day . You've got your bag, hat, coat, maybe a bucks to nickel and dime yourself through your walkings, where you're walking to ain't really matters anyway it is just about enjoying what you did to get there and the things you saw on your way over. Very quickly switching what we are talking about, Body without Organs is a key piece to a paper that I wrote and something that I took awhile trying to understand. In short it is about desire overriding the self and a good example is a heroin addict, I liked the idea and found it pretty interesting I won't go into explaining it here but if it sounds interesting you can check out the Into the Wild Analysis paper I wrote. Through this project I have become more cynical with the people around me but oddly more happy with the world generally, an individual has highly specific needs and traits while a group is malleable and easier to work with. Something that really got to me though was that the only way forward past the current point is rejection of what came before such as what postmodernism did to Germans and all those types of thinkers we have to do to the postmodernist and then implant something that applies to our current situation.
I left with more questions than what was answered by what I saw and read. I want to understand the difference between a Synthetic and Analytic sentence in the way Kant described it which could be difficult could be moderately challenging I don't know all to much (as I write I have a tab opened called Kant's Aesthetics so I am making way towards it) I have a basic grasp on it and it is more something that I have recently come into contact with. I want to write more about the world around me, I thought about this while watching two cops roll up on a deranged looking women with a pair of pliers in her hands clipping at various parts of her body and I thought I should write this down or record it in some way as to not let it fade from memory like tears in the rain. If there is anything I want to do though it is to get whatever Hegel was getting at with his writing and that ain't going to happen for a while. But I do wonder that what happens after, names like hegel, Kant, Deleuze, and Artaud are dying out of the public mind, philosophy now for many people just looks like self-help books and ways to try to reject religion which isn't what I would think of. We saw how art got with the modernist period, so what happens now where does it go from here or did White on White tell the truth and that did mark the death of art?
What have I learned through all this though, well I did a lot of side research that I can get into to, so lets start. Philosophical Vagabond is a term that I find really nice (as it is pleasant sounding and the meaning behind is nice) and it is a big part of why I included Moomin into my paper and art because of Snufkin. On top of being a fun little character of the series he holds ideologies that I agree with like his need to not have much except what he likes not to over complicate your life with a whole lot of stuff that you really do not need at the end of day . You've got your bag, hat, coat, maybe a bucks to nickel and dime yourself through your walkings, where you're walking to ain't really matters anyway it is just about enjoying what you did to get there and the things you saw on your way over. Very quickly switching what we are talking about, Body without Organs is a key piece to a paper that I wrote and something that I took awhile trying to understand. In short it is about desire overriding the self and a good example is a heroin addict, I liked the idea and found it pretty interesting I won't go into explaining it here but if it sounds interesting you can check out the Into the Wild Analysis paper I wrote. Through this project I have become more cynical with the people around me but oddly more happy with the world generally, an individual has highly specific needs and traits while a group is malleable and easier to work with. Something that really got to me though was that the only way forward past the current point is rejection of what came before such as what postmodernism did to Germans and all those types of thinkers we have to do to the postmodernist and then implant something that applies to our current situation.
I left with more questions than what was answered by what I saw and read. I want to understand the difference between a Synthetic and Analytic sentence in the way Kant described it which could be difficult could be moderately challenging I don't know all to much (as I write I have a tab opened called Kant's Aesthetics so I am making way towards it) I have a basic grasp on it and it is more something that I have recently come into contact with. I want to write more about the world around me, I thought about this while watching two cops roll up on a deranged looking women with a pair of pliers in her hands clipping at various parts of her body and I thought I should write this down or record it in some way as to not let it fade from memory like tears in the rain. If there is anything I want to do though it is to get whatever Hegel was getting at with his writing and that ain't going to happen for a while. But I do wonder that what happens after, names like hegel, Kant, Deleuze, and Artaud are dying out of the public mind, philosophy now for many people just looks like self-help books and ways to try to reject religion which isn't what I would think of. We saw how art got with the modernist period, so what happens now where does it go from here or did White on White tell the truth and that did mark the death of art?
artist_statement_.pdf | |
File Size: | 46 kb |
File Type: |
Into the Wild Analysis
After our reading and viewing of Jon Krakauer's novel Into the Wild and the subsequent movie made afterwards, we analysed the concepts in the book and related it back to a different topic. In my paper I take Chris McCandless and related it a Body without Organs.
into_the_wild_film_analysis_.pdf | |
File Size: | 48 kb |
File Type: |