I forgot to blog yesterday about this. So I'll just do one longer entry.
~~~~
The speeches were actually really interesting. It was cool to see how most people set up things differently. We all had the same basic outlines: History, claim, reasons, backing, qualifier, conclusion, etc. But we all wrote and presented our speeches differently. Some people had more than others and some people had less. Some people relied almost completely on emotion and some people relied almost completely on logic. Most people were in the middle. There were quite a few really good speeches, too. The way people drew upon quotes and personal experiences was interesting, as was everyone's approach to the conditions of rebuttal/qualifier part.
The first day we did it was more interesting than the second, simply because I don't have to ability to focus for that long on the speeches. I kept spacing out and going all distracted. It's not that the last speeches were more boring- it's just that I was losing concentration.
My speech went better than I thought it would. I thought I would fail. I ran out of time and didn't do everything justice. But all in all, I think it went well. I have no idea if that was a problem for other people as well. Five minutes is a lot shorter than I thought it would be. I was also a lot less nervous than I thought I would be. Maybe that was because I was thinking about lunch the whole time.
EDIT: Were we supposed to blog about one person's in particular? I can't really remember what people said what anymore. I do remember that I thought that Brittney and Nick M had good presentations. I know other people did too but I've forgotten anything else. Oops.
Wednesday 10 October 2007
Monday 8 October 2007
What is Emerson saying it takes to be successful? Do you agree? Is it that easy?
Emerson is saying that to be successful, one has to trust only in himself, reject as much authority over yourself as you can, assume that you and only you are brilliant and think of everything in a new way. He goes into a lot of detail about all this- explaining how people have become the unthinking sheep of great thinkers- always accepting others' views on things. He says that if you accept authority from above- from a government, God, or whoever- you cease to think for yourself and acquiese to their ideas on everything. He says that people have the ability to be absolutely individual and not allow others to influence them at all. He explains this in far more detail than I can summarize here- but that's basically his idea.
I disagree. People cannot think only their own thoughts, unless they're a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere, and even that's debatable. We are all influenced by everything around us. We think the thoughts we're raised wiht and influenced by and even our most original thoughts are simply extensions of a disagreement with the norm. I could have been born in Outer Mongolia and thought only of camels and sandstorms. Instead, I'm typing this. Not because I'm more or less original, or independent, but because I have to be. I have no choice. I find it difficult to think of something completely my own. How is it possible to form a completely original hypothesis when one lives in a world where everything you can draw on to help form your conclusions nullifies the originality in it?
Also- I disagree with his points about authority. He explains that when people put their minds and services for the use of one (or many) person(s), then they lose the right to express themselves, and that's bad. He's right to some extent. If, say, a despot takes over and orders them to do stuff, then they will to save themselves. Sometimes, people die to fit the whims of a dictator- losing every other right as well. I agree that that's awful beyond just bad. But people can't descend into anarchy. They can't reject all authority. We need someone to look up to, to base our moral judgment on, to keep us from falling into random violence. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted because everyone is right about everything there would be murder and prejudice and collapse of civilization. Serial killers believe that they are right. According to Emerson, they are. And yet I know no one who would condone a society that lets them roam unhindered.
Emerson also states somewhere in his long essay that he doesn't care about the poor, because they're not his poor. He says it takes courage to defy the societal norm of giving to those less needy. He says that charity is simply a way for people to follow authority and example and do what everyone thinks is right, not what they think is right. He says it's an immoral act. I don't think so. The poor, etc., need help. Does it matter if the help is given wrongly or grudgingly? Isn't some help, or help for wrongful reasons, better than none at all? Don't the ends justify the means in this case? Good things are done. The means hurt nothing save perhaps pride. It doesn't matter if you hate someone simply for your own reasons, or only because you feel no connection to them. If they are hurt, you should have a duty as a fellow human being to help them. Of course, I wouldn't say to help Hitler or someone like that. But denying aid to the poor simply because you are not, and never were poor is far more wrong to me than rebelling against society and harming people by omission in the process.
I was going to say something else, but I forgot so oh well. :)
Emerson is saying that to be successful, one has to trust only in himself, reject as much authority over yourself as you can, assume that you and only you are brilliant and think of everything in a new way. He goes into a lot of detail about all this- explaining how people have become the unthinking sheep of great thinkers- always accepting others' views on things. He says that if you accept authority from above- from a government, God, or whoever- you cease to think for yourself and acquiese to their ideas on everything. He says that people have the ability to be absolutely individual and not allow others to influence them at all. He explains this in far more detail than I can summarize here- but that's basically his idea.
I disagree. People cannot think only their own thoughts, unless they're a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere, and even that's debatable. We are all influenced by everything around us. We think the thoughts we're raised wiht and influenced by and even our most original thoughts are simply extensions of a disagreement with the norm. I could have been born in Outer Mongolia and thought only of camels and sandstorms. Instead, I'm typing this. Not because I'm more or less original, or independent, but because I have to be. I have no choice. I find it difficult to think of something completely my own. How is it possible to form a completely original hypothesis when one lives in a world where everything you can draw on to help form your conclusions nullifies the originality in it?
Also- I disagree with his points about authority. He explains that when people put their minds and services for the use of one (or many) person(s), then they lose the right to express themselves, and that's bad. He's right to some extent. If, say, a despot takes over and orders them to do stuff, then they will to save themselves. Sometimes, people die to fit the whims of a dictator- losing every other right as well. I agree that that's awful beyond just bad. But people can't descend into anarchy. They can't reject all authority. We need someone to look up to, to base our moral judgment on, to keep us from falling into random violence. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted because everyone is right about everything there would be murder and prejudice and collapse of civilization. Serial killers believe that they are right. According to Emerson, they are. And yet I know no one who would condone a society that lets them roam unhindered.
Emerson also states somewhere in his long essay that he doesn't care about the poor, because they're not his poor. He says it takes courage to defy the societal norm of giving to those less needy. He says that charity is simply a way for people to follow authority and example and do what everyone thinks is right, not what they think is right. He says it's an immoral act. I don't think so. The poor, etc., need help. Does it matter if the help is given wrongly or grudgingly? Isn't some help, or help for wrongful reasons, better than none at all? Don't the ends justify the means in this case? Good things are done. The means hurt nothing save perhaps pride. It doesn't matter if you hate someone simply for your own reasons, or only because you feel no connection to them. If they are hurt, you should have a duty as a fellow human being to help them. Of course, I wouldn't say to help Hitler or someone like that. But denying aid to the poor simply because you are not, and never were poor is far more wrong to me than rebelling against society and harming people by omission in the process.
I was going to say something else, but I forgot so oh well. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
