Tuesday, September 20, 2011

A Platonic Perspective: Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory and Form of speech.

     In high school or college, you receive assignments where you not only have to hand in a complete paper. Part of your assignment involves you to give a speech on the assignment that you completed. The idea of public speaking can be unbearable to some students. I personally have never had any fear of public speaking. One of the problems that I faced was the question of how I was going to present my speech for class. I though to myself, " Is there a form of categorization to present a speech?" After reading about the Greek  philosopher Aristotle in Chapter 4 of my ENG/SPE 335 text book titled RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, I discovered that there was a form of presenting a speech. I read the chapter Aristotle's Rhetoric and discovered that the philosopher made an important impact on how people present speeches today.

     In Aristotle's book Poetics there's a discussion of speech giving. In the text RHETORIC and Human Consciousness, Aristotle's Poetics is mentioned and gives tools for speaking in public.The author of the text Craig R. Smith discusses the philosopher Aristotle's take on rhetoric when he  says:

      " the Poetics explores ways to bring a scene alive before an audience, a talent useful in forensic speaking. Character (ethos), the second element, dianoia ( the connecting process that determines the course of events in the story) is the province of rhetorical theory because rhetoric is more concerned with proper timing, appropriateness, and the contingent nature of humans"(Smith, 65).

     Two of these skills are considered useful for public speaking.They are ethos and dianoia. They are ideas brought together by Aristotle to categorize the process of constructing a speech. The philosopher wanted to point people to a system of categories that would lead to truth. Unlike his mentor and predecessor Plato, who only wanted for people to seek truth from the so called noumenal world ( aka the after life, nether world, etc). Plato wanted to seek truth from having the answers be brought down from the heavens. While Aristotle argued that Truth could easily be achieved here on Earth. In the non-spiritual realm. A visual description of Aristotle and Plato's theories of seeking truth is shown in the artist's Michaelangelo's fresco titled School of Athens. There is an image of Plato pointing up to the sky and Aristotle pressing his hand down mid air. The image speaks for itself on the two Platonists view of how to seek truth. One man was looking up while the other was keeping himself in the moment.  The writer Smith continues to say about Aristotle's influence on rhetoric is:
   
     " The Poetics also develops the notion of catharsis ( katharsis) by which emotions are released and the soul is cleansed. In the Poetics, Aristotle focuses on the use of emotions for a consummatory art form" ( Smith, 65).

     So Aristotle expects emotion to play a role in his form of rhetoric. That element along with the previous one's are useful while not forgetting the last element of mimesis. The art of mimicry, imitation, and memorization. I must admit, memorizing is an important tool to have at college and at giving a speech. It is important to remember what your saying before you present your point. Or else your  just some tool up on a podium who is just flinging garbage to whoever is around to hear it, and possibly listen to it. I give points to Aristotle for including the element of mimesis.

     I must also point out that Aristotle's Rhetoric includes the three forms of public address. Part of Aristotle's elements of Form and Organization is three types of speech: Deliberative( political), Epideictic( ceremonial), and Forensic ( legal).  Page 85 of Smith's RHETORIC explains the three types of genres. The text says:
     " A forensic speech is for an audience who will assess the accusation and defense to determine guilt or innocence regarding past acts" ( Smith, 85).
     It was mentioned in the first paragraph that I cited that forensic speaking was needed to bring a speech alive. I think that the other two genres of epideictic and deliberative can be just as able to bring a persons words to life to lift up or press down an audience. Aristotle's theories on speech have made those actions possible in today's world. 
     


    

     

Monday, September 12, 2011

Fracking or No Fracking? The issue of switching from coal to nataral gas.

     I would like to think of myself as environmentally conscious. That means I recycle, I don't litter and I'm not very supportive of the idea switching from coal to natural gas for energy usage. I am definitely NOT okay with the recent facts being suggested that natural gas will not be able to halt the climate change. There is research that can confirm that replacing coal with natural gas may add more harmful heat to our blue planet.
     Ever since I watched Al Gore's environmental documentary entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth", I have become more worried about over the safety and health of planet Earth. I was somehow convinced that carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles contributed to most of the toxicity in the atmosphere. The same kind of toxicity that's affecting global warming. Further research and school lectures in the classroom have informed me that methane gas from cattle and cattle farming contributes more CO2 emissions than automobiles. Carbon Dioxide can cause acceleration to global warming, but I also discovered that the methane gas being released from the drilling of natural gas may be more destructive to the planet.
     The term for drilling natural gas from the earth is known as ''fracking."  I learned about the term from my Rhetoric Literature professor Dr. Morris. I even learned some interesting facts about natural gas. I learned that natural gas was made of methane. The gas is located in natural gas fields, oil fields and coal beds. The uses for natural gas range from generating heat inside homes, electricity, ammonia production, hydrogen production and is even considered a cleaner substitute for petroleum fuel.
     I recently read in the Science Daily website an article titled " Switching from Coal to Natural Gas Would Do Little for Global Climate, Study Indicates", which explains that the further drilling of natural gas instead of coal will not affect the climate in a positive way. Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says, " Relying more on natural gas would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but it would do little to help solve the climate problem" ( Science Daily, 1). I was skeptical about natural gas drilling before and now I'm convinced that this will be a losing game for saving our planet. The article also states, " By running a series of computer simulations, Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in world wide warming for the next 40 years" ( Science Daily, 2). Both energy sources seem to come with consequences.
     I also must comment that I'm from the great state of Pennsylvania. I 'm also shocked to learn that natural gas drilling was occurring more in Pennsylvania. In the article " Playing Pennsylvania's Natural Gas Room", Aaron Levitt writes about the future of gas drilling in PA. Levitt states, " Pennsylvania, with a small contribution from West Virginia, now accounts for more than 85 % of all the natural gas produced in the Northeast"(1). I am upset to learn that my home state of PA may contribute to global warming. I believe the state of Pennsylvania has the intelligence and capability to find cleaner sources of energy without depending on gas or coal. I would like to dedicate some of my future time into helping my state into a cleaner world. How about you?