Modernists vs. Existentialists

I have taken a logic class before and learned that the only arguments we can be sure of are ones based on mathematics, definition and various types of syllogisms. Assuming that each premises of an arguments is true means the conclusion must be true. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are about debatable topics, which an absolute truth cannot be found. A few examples of inductive reasoning would be our opinions, how we explain things (this happens because of this), or illustrations of what we are describing by various methods.

For me the modernists fall into the deductive reasoning category sticking to strict logic to think about the world. It’s hard to argue against Kant’s categorical imperative that each must “act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law” (Smith 273). That idea would be great if there weren’t people who exist that are crazy and fully believe that marrying their pet horse is just fine. I would say that is where the inductive reasoning comes in. Some may live a good life and they might see that life fit for others but that doesn’t make it right. Those using rhetoric must deal with topics that not always logical but specific and cannot be defined. As Smith puts it in our textbook Rhetoric & Human Consciousness, “Reality evades definitive and adequate explanation; however, such uncertainty gives one freedom of choice” (Smith 269).

I like how the chapter starts with the modernists to show what ideas the existentialists revolted against. It helped facilitate my understanding of the existentialists and there thoughts on rhetoric. For them “language is the stuff of an ultimate art that is better able than any other to help us reach a sense of spirit through creativity and to hear the call of conscience through its making-known function” (Smith 290). I can see how rhetoric should be absolute and logical but that only applies to a short spectrum of ideas. It is healthy to have topics open for debate so they we are always improving on them and getting better.



Bibliography

Smith, Craig R. Rhetoric & Human Consciousness. 2nd ed. Waveland Press, Inc: Illinois. Pg. 269-290.

Thoughts on Rhetoric, Ethics and Existentialism

I have always found existentialism interesting because it relates to each and every human individually. It is just interesting to hear highly intelligent philosophers explain their views on how we interact in our environment and their thoughts as to how human beings can better themselves. It is an optimistic way of thinking that we will get better as a society and learn from our wrongs, as I don’t completely agree with. I agree with Kierkegaard that we are constantly practicing and improving because I find myself doing this over the years, or I guess you could also call it growing up. I don’t think this is a case that would apply to everyone and this isn’t necessarily true.

For example, many who go to prison, according to statistics, will be highly likely to return despite the fact that they first hand know how bad it is. I also think that it is almost impossible to transcend the evils of money (especially is a capitalist society). Money seems to define a person, not only in the United States but worldwide and acts as a vehicle in gaining power. Just as many politicians in the past have been corrupt, I think there will be many more in the future. This is where ethics plays an important role in rhetoric and everyday life.

We must learn to live our lives for the greater good, which Socrates argues in Gorgias, which I am currently reading for another class. By reading the dialogue, one can sense that Socrates is skeptical of rhetoric because he thinks it is flattery or only saying something because that is what you think that person wants to hear, which is to an extent true. Rhetoric is used for personal gain. Even if you are raising money for cancer research to benefit other people, the concern may stem from a family member dying from cancer or fear that you may get it in the future. We must always keep the concern for the greater good first and leave our own interests behind.

Kierkegaard argues that we must work to improve ourselves and others by practice. Practice is defined as learning how “we use language to help ourselves and others destroy the illusions of the inauthentic life ( money and power) and embrace an authentic sense of self – a self that is free to choose, a self that accepts responsibility for choice, and a self that uses its freedom creatively to reinforce its individuality” (Smith 278). I agree with this completely I just don’t have faith that everyone’s ethical standpoint is where it should be.


Bibliography

Smith, Craig R. Rhetoric & Human Consciousness. 2nd ed. Waveland Press, Inc: Illinois. Pg. 278.