2. I would say that this statement is not one hundred percent true. Although I agree with the idea that we do not readily engage ourselves in discourse with which we disagree, there are certain types of people that enjoy engaging in debate with others who do not share similar beliefs. Thus, the opportunity to share one’s specific point of view and possibly expand their argument to disallow future refutation is engendered.
It is healthy to come across a conversation in which views which are in opposition to one’s own are presented. If the only discussions that people had with one another were ones in which both parties agreed with everything the other person expressed, there would be significantly less opportunity to broaden one’s views. In addition, it is important for people to respect the opinions and positions of others even when they are drastically different. Arguments are often strengthened when they are challenged; therefore, active listening is a necessary component to argument. As the arguer, it is beneficial to present the argument in such a way that the listeners will want to listen, and perhaps be persuaded to the arguer’s position. Both arguers and listeners need to beware of hot buttons that could essentially disallow their conversation to take place because of the sensitive nature of hot buttons or certain topics.
It would be very challenging for one to avoid discourse with which one disagrees. I do not think that there is anyone who does not have a point of view on some subject that may be conflicting with someone else’s. If someone were to agree with every other argument or point of view, that person would have no jurisdiction within argument because they do not seem to have an opinion of their own at all. Personal stances are of high importance when it comes to making a valid argument. If the argument is meant to persuade an audience, how would one do so if he or she did not appear to agree or disagree with a particular side of the argument?
If one ignores discourse that one disagrees with, the opportunity to further educate oneself is lost. Presenting a biased point of view is not helpful when making an effective argument. A good arguer is one who does not completely discard the rebuttal. Acknowledging the fact that there may be another side to an argument makes the argument for one side or another all the more strong and effective. It demonstrates that the person has taken these views into account and has possibly drawn up further argument to refute them.
Partaking in discourse which presents views that are in opposition to our own not only allows us to further educate ourselves, but allows us to strengthen our own arguments when it comes time to presenting our own opinions.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Burke Article Questions
Respsonse Questions to Burke’s Article Week 5
Burke’s article discusses examples of how we use literature to help us describe aspects of our being-specifically through the use of proverbs. Burke identifies specific categories that these proverbs seem to be grouped into, because “proverbs are strategies for dealing with situations” (Burke 296). After making these statements, Burke spends some time arguing for his use of the word “strategies” and suggests that an alternate word for strategies could be “attitude”.
1. After this, Burke discusses the contradictions found among proverbs that I found to be rather interesting. If proverbs are meant to serve as methods for dealing with a given situation, isn’t it reasonable that such contradictions exist? For example, following a proverb that aims to provide a helpful hint to reach success will result in either a success or a failure. Let’s say that the person did indeed fail after first obeying the helpful proverb. The person might then seek a proverb of consolation that might encourage a second attempt. We, as humans, are not successful in all of our endeavors and therefore seek words of encouragement, consolation, and incentive to match any situation we find ourselves in. It is natural that proverbs are contradictory, then, because we require a number of different attitudes to complement what we humans experience. We are constantly re-working our strategies in order to achieve our goals, which thus create the necessity of a range of proverbs that we may tailor to our emotional needs. What do you think of my interpretation of Burke’s ideas?
2. Toward the end of the article, Burke proposes an alternate sociological classification system. His system would involve “a method of classification with reference to strategies” (Burke 303) and later states: “I think what we need is active categories” (Burke 303). Considering some of my conclusions in question 1, I was wondering what such categories might be like. The article never really comes to a conclusion of what exactly an “active category” might be. I the idea of active categories that encompass a more of the pertinent attitudes within a given situation so as to give a clearer indication of what is specific to each division and what overlaps. My question is: what such a system would look like? Since we are able to infer a lot of information via the existence of a category itself, why would we need to change our perspective in this way? Maybe there is something I misunderstood, but I had a hard time conceptualizing Burke’s suggestions at the end of the article.
3. I thought Burke’s example of Aesop’s Fables and how their messages are relevant to present-day situations just as much as former decades was useful. Mostly I thought that his point was a good way of understanding media as a whole. For example, people read classical literature because the situations still possess many of the things we find entertaining no matter how long ago it was published. People’s thoughts, lives, and emotions fall into similar patterns despite their particular situation. Although we look for new ways to express ourselves, certain aspects of being human nature are adapted to our specific media frame.
Burke’s article discusses examples of how we use literature to help us describe aspects of our being-specifically through the use of proverbs. Burke identifies specific categories that these proverbs seem to be grouped into, because “proverbs are strategies for dealing with situations” (Burke 296). After making these statements, Burke spends some time arguing for his use of the word “strategies” and suggests that an alternate word for strategies could be “attitude”.
1. After this, Burke discusses the contradictions found among proverbs that I found to be rather interesting. If proverbs are meant to serve as methods for dealing with a given situation, isn’t it reasonable that such contradictions exist? For example, following a proverb that aims to provide a helpful hint to reach success will result in either a success or a failure. Let’s say that the person did indeed fail after first obeying the helpful proverb. The person might then seek a proverb of consolation that might encourage a second attempt. We, as humans, are not successful in all of our endeavors and therefore seek words of encouragement, consolation, and incentive to match any situation we find ourselves in. It is natural that proverbs are contradictory, then, because we require a number of different attitudes to complement what we humans experience. We are constantly re-working our strategies in order to achieve our goals, which thus create the necessity of a range of proverbs that we may tailor to our emotional needs. What do you think of my interpretation of Burke’s ideas?
2. Toward the end of the article, Burke proposes an alternate sociological classification system. His system would involve “a method of classification with reference to strategies” (Burke 303) and later states: “I think what we need is active categories” (Burke 303). Considering some of my conclusions in question 1, I was wondering what such categories might be like. The article never really comes to a conclusion of what exactly an “active category” might be. I the idea of active categories that encompass a more of the pertinent attitudes within a given situation so as to give a clearer indication of what is specific to each division and what overlaps. My question is: what such a system would look like? Since we are able to infer a lot of information via the existence of a category itself, why would we need to change our perspective in this way? Maybe there is something I misunderstood, but I had a hard time conceptualizing Burke’s suggestions at the end of the article.
3. I thought Burke’s example of Aesop’s Fables and how their messages are relevant to present-day situations just as much as former decades was useful. Mostly I thought that his point was a good way of understanding media as a whole. For example, people read classical literature because the situations still possess many of the things we find entertaining no matter how long ago it was published. People’s thoughts, lives, and emotions fall into similar patterns despite their particular situation. Although we look for new ways to express ourselves, certain aspects of being human nature are adapted to our specific media frame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)