Firstly, King addresses his opponents’ assertion of his ‘being an outsider coming in” by stating his official role and involvement with the black civil rights movement: president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He continues to explain that his presence in Birmingham is not because he is trying to interfere, but rather because local churches in which the conference was affiliated invited him. Delving a further step in, King was only invited because of his reputation – an example of ethos being used as reasoning for his actions as well as for rebuttal of his opponents’ accusations.

            Furthermore, King provides numerous references to historical data and quotes, comparing his own actions and ideas to other well-recognized political and philosophical figures such as Jefferson, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Regardless of the compelling parallels he presents, the obvious in-depth knowledge King possesses provides further foundation to his persona and character. Being a pastor engaged in a disagreement with other clergymen, King’s ability to cite specific Bible references (crusade discussion, p. 174) further emphasizes his credentials; he is able to communicate on common ground with the audience, based off his personal knowledge and experience.

            In addition, King speaks in a very respectful, cautious tone – one that remind the audience that his arguments are heartfelt and based on logic, not the emotion one often gets wrapped up when arguing a point. Using diction such as “my dear fellow clergymen,” (p. 172) serves to approach his arguments with a levelheaded, credible tone in which his argument may hold more weight.

            The appeal of ethos is Letter from Birmingham Jail contributes greatly to the overall meaning of the work as a whole. While King’s logic and arguments are logical, appropriate, and fluid, the background and credibility he brings to the essay elevate its integrity, turning the work from a formulated list of logical explanations to the creative and bold works of a true activist and leader. King’s tone, authority, and knowledge, combined with countless convincing arguments, prompt a heightened sense of credibility in which continues the ever-growing civil rights act.

            In Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, Shakespeare uses different appeals, details, and understandings of the character, Caesar, to make Decius’s argument more persuasive than Calphurnia’s in convincing Caesar whether or not he should go to the Senate.

            Decius’s understanding of Caesar’s ambition and pride was a major reason he was able to convince Caesar to go to the Senate. While Calphurnia tells Caesar he should be afraid and not go, his stubborn pride drives him to prove he isn’t afraid by going. Decius tells Caesar what he wants to hear, that Caesar is the blood of Rome. He tells Caesar he will be crowned that day, his life’s ambition, and that if he didn’t go, they would think he was a coward. Because of his pride and ambition, he goes.

            Decius also uses different appeals. While Calphurnia tries to use logos, logic, to convince Caesar, it cannot overcome his pride. Decius uses pathos and plays on Caesar’s emotions. Decius tells Caesar that he does not want to appear a coward when he goes to be crowned King. By doing so, Decius plays on Caesar’s fear of negative opinion and his pride.

            The details of the interpretations of the dream also have opposite meanings. Calphurnia believes the blood is a sign of evil and the smiling Romans are lustful. Decius says the dream is good. The blood is the reviving blood of Caesar for the Roman people and the smiling Romans weren’t lustful, but glad Caesar was their leader.

            Shakespeare uses different appeals, details, and understandings of the character, Caesar, to make Decius’s argument more successful. The details of Decius’s interpretation of the dream had better connotations coupled with his appeals to Caesar’s pride and ambition made him successful over Calphurnia in convincing Caesar to go to the Senate

A child is born with Huntington’s disease but the family does not know until the child is in his mid-thirties. The disease gets worse and the family is torn in despair wondering which one of the children also has the disease. These cases are sad, but what makes it even more tragic is that thousands of infants are born with a congenital disease such has Huntington’s disease every year. That is why genetic engineering research should be supported: millions of lives will be saved from suffering and premature death. Down Syndrome (lifelong mental retardation), Tay-Sachs Disease (progressive loss of neurons), Sickle Cell Anemia (distorted blood cells), Cystic Fibrosis (eventual lung failure), and Huntington’s Disease (progressive degradation of the brain) are all congenital diseases that can be eliminated through genetic engineering. (“Diseases”) Scientists will have to prevent congenital diseases from passing on to the next generation by replacing, removing, or modifying certain genes in the human germ. (O’Donnell)Although genetic engineering can help save lives, there are some concerns over the risks that further advancement of genetic engineering may create. However, controlled advancement of genetic engineering by law will help prevent abuse of the technology.

In 1986, when scientists were able to successfully modify a bacterium’s genes to so that the bacterium resists ice from forming, there was not a lot of opposition. The public didn’t care very much and accepted genetic engineering research as beneficial since the modified bacteria would help the agricultural industry by keeping fruits alive. (Thompson) However, when scientists started to tinker with human genes, the general public became concerned. Many questions were raised and fear of the unknown began to mislead people to biased generalities about genetic engineering. There is also no doubt that the media has played a large role in making the general public more wary and cautious about genetic engineering through movies such as Resident Evil where a genetically engineered virus mutates and turns infected people into zombies. The fact is that, most of the people against genetic engineering either fear it or are misformed.

The potential of genetic engineering is undeniable. In fact, nearly everyone in the United States has probably been exposed to it or knows more about it than they think. For example, people with diabetes either do not have insulin hormone in their body or their body refuses to absorb the hormone: insulin is essential for the body to convert glucose into energy. Diabetic people who do not receive insulin will have no chance of living a long healthy life. (Type 2) However, Scientists have been able to make synthetic insulin from common bacteria, usually Escherichia coli, through genetic engineering. (“How”) Genetic engineering gave diabetic people a chance at a normal and healthy life. In 2007, about 35.7 million people in the United States had diabetes. (“National”) The chances are high that you have met a diabetic who uses genetically engineered insulin. Many of these people would have died already or lived miserable lives if it wasn’t for genetic engineering research.

The benefits that genetic engineering research in humans will yield are incalculable. For example, there are approximately 30,000 people in the United States who suffer just from cystic fibrosis and will eventually die prematurely. (“Cystic”) If just this one congenital disease is cured, millions of people in the future will be saved from suffering in the future. However, if one congenital disease can be cured, there is high probability than many others can be as well. Also, if the United States is going to stop research in genetic engineering, it will not prevent other countries from researching it. If the United States does decide to ban all genetic engineering research (highly improbable), the country will eventually fall behind and foreign countries may use the knowledge and technology gained from genetic engineering research to take advantage of the United States in biological warfare or in medicine. However, as great as genetic engineering may sound, there are some concerns people against it will bring up.

The main concern for people who oppose genetic engineering is that the technology will get out of hand and be abused for unethical practices. Some people believe that genetic engineering will lead to a society of celebrity look-a-likes where parents all choose the same sets of genes for their baby. This will lead to the reduction of the genetic diversity of the human gene pool and make humans more susceptible to bacteria, viruses, and diseases. (“Genetic”) Some also believe that genetic engineering will lead to human cloning or that scientists are trying to play god by altering what a person will look like. These concerns are definitely serious, but they can be solved if the government institutes legislation to control how genetic engineering research advances. Based on research it seems that one reason why people fear the advancement of genetic engineering is that there is not enough legislation to keep it in check. (Perzigian) If the advancement of genetic engineering is controlled and “designer babies” and human clones are banned, then further research in genetic engineering will be for the better.

In that future, there will be much less suffering and more people will have the chance to enjoy life to the fullest. As long as there is proper legislation for genetic engineering research, it will be certain that the quality of life for humans will be enriched future generations. Imagine a future where families do not have to suffer from congenital diseases and everyone is born healthy. Although some people may say that achieving this kind of ideal world is impossible, you can still dream and believe. As the saying goes, “you never know until you try.”

Works Cited

“Cystic Fibrosis Foundation – ABOUT CYSTIC FIBROSIS.” Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Web. 3 Dec 2009. <http://www.cff.org/AboutCF/>.

“Diseases and Conditions.” Mayo Clinc medical information and tools for healthy living. June 23, 2009. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Web. 1 Dec 2009. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/DiseasesIndex/DiseasesIndex>.

“Genetic Engineering Debates.” Replicators: Evolutionary Powerhouses. Team C004367, Web. 6 Dec 2009. <http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be10.shtml>.

“How insulin is made.” How Products Are Made. Advameg, Inc., Web. 30 Nov 2009. <http://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Insulin.html>.

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. National Diabetes Statistics, 2007 fact sheet. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 30 Nov 2009 . < http://www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/#allages>

O’Donnell, Kevin. “Genetic Engineering Can Cure Human Diseases.” Opposing Viewpoints: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Michigan State University Libraries. 30 Nov. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010218225&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=msu_main&version=1.0>.

Perzigian, Andrew B. “More Legislation Is Needed to Regulate the Genetic Engineering of Animals.” At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Ed. Maurya Siedler. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Michigan State University Libraries. 2 Dec. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010192222&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=msu_main&version=1.0>.

Thompson, R. (1986). Genetic breakthroughs. In Editorial research reports 1986 (Vol. I). Washington: CQ Press. CQ Press Electronic Library, CQ Researcher Online. 1 Dec 2009.
 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1986011009>.

“Type 2.” American Diabetes Association. 30 Dec 2009. American Diabetes Association, Web. 30 Dec 2009. <http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/type-2/>.

A Neo-Aristotelian Critique of President Obama’s Health Care Reform Speech

President Barack Obama delivered his speech on health care reform to congress on September 9, 2009 at the Capital building in Washington, D.C.  The speech was significant because of its critical effort in persuading congress to support the nationwide health care bill.  I selected the Neo-Aristotelian method for its pertinence to persuasive speeches.  I will use this method to determine whether Obama’s speech was effective.  There are five canons in the Neo-Aristotelian method.  The first canon is invention, which explores the location and creation of ideas and materials for the speech.  The second canon is organization, which is the structure or arrangement of the speech.  The third canon is style, which is the language used in the speech. The fourth canon is delivery, which is the management of voice and gestures in the presentation of the speech.  And finally, the fifth canon is memory, which is the mastery of the subject matter and may include the actual memorization of the speech (Rhetorical Criticism 2004  p. 30.)  Barack Obama used the five canons in order to deliver a reasonable and persuasive argument to congress and the general public.

According to the first canon: invention, the critic must examine the speaker’s major ideas, lines of argument, or content.  Invention is thus broken down into two categories, external proofs such as testimony of witness or documents, and internal proofs including proofs that the rhetor creates.  Internal proofs fall into three categories, logos: logical arguments, ethos: appeal of the rhetor’s character, and pathos: appeal to emotion.  (Rhetorical Criticism 2004 p. 30)  In applying invention to Obama’s speech, a variety of internal and external proofs are utilized.

The external proofs include facts about the necessity of health care.  Though not citing his sources, Obama states the facts: “There are more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”  He also states:  “Every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.  In other words, it can happen to anyone.”  These proofs are used to help him paint a broad picture that applies to both the members of congress and all Americans.  Obama follows the broad examples with more specific case based examples:  “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”  He uses these facts to lead to his internal proofs.

Obama employs internal proofs to build credibility.  He achieves this through the use of pathos (emotion,) ethos,(character,) and logos (logic.)  First he uses pathos: or emotional appeal when he states: “That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.”  The audience should feel ashamed about the status of our current health insurance.  The emotional implication is: “How anyone could let such an atrocity go on in this great country?”   Obama then uses ethos or appeal to the rhetor’s character when he gives credit to republican ideas.  Obama states: “This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.” Obama compliments John McCain not just because McCain’s idea was beneficial, but because it was a good idea from a republican.  More specifically, it was a good idea from his campaign opponent, and leader of the Republican Party.  Obama wants republicans to adopt and support his ideas, and he is encouraging that by adopting some of theirs.  He wants them to think: “Maybe Obama is not all about just being right, maybe he is an unbiased person who is willing to listen to our objectives.”  Not only does Obama want republicans and democrats to appeal to his character, but he also wants to convey a sense of goodwill.              

Obama displays that he cares about his audience when he emphatically states: “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”  His statements show his concern for the American people and how they are paying too much for health insurance.  He even establishes credibility by using the words “we” throughout the speech to convey that “we” are all on the same side.  He wants the audience to feel that they are in the same situation as the president; both the problems and solutions are shared mutually.          

In adherence to the second canon of organization, Obama uses a problem-solution order to illustrate how the American people are overpaying for unacceptable coverage.  He begins the speech explaining all the current problems with America’s heath care.  He mentions the problems with getting the bill passed, such as political bickering, and trying to score: “short-term political points.”  Then he shifts to the solution stage of his speech with the statements: “The time for bickering is over.  The time for games has passed.” Then he proceeds to explain: “The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals,” this marks the beginning of the section where he explains his plan’s solutions.  Overall the organization is structured so that about one-third of the speech addresses the problems, and two-thirds of the speech explains the solutions including details to his new proposal.  The implied values of this structure show that the problems are most important to be dealt with first.  This is why they are placed in the beginning of the speech.  However, the overall solution is given more weight as it takes up twice as much time and attention.  In line with his statement “the time for bickering is over,” he wants to only spend the necessary amount of time addressing the problems and obstacles.  The organization suggests Obama does not seek to point fingers; instead he wants to draw attention to a highly prevalent problem in order to effectively solve it.  

   In order to solve the problems with health care today, Obama needs to employ the third canon: style, in order to appeal to his audience which happens to be both congress directly, and also the American people through live television and Internet coverage.  Style focuses on language used, symbols, figures of speech, and sentence arrangement.  More than half of Obama’s paragraphs begin with “Now.”  The second most common beginning to a new paragraph is “And.”  This alone illustrates the overall objective of the speech is: “Now, we must do this…. And this.”  The word itself can be used as both a command and a statement of time.  Now, we must work together to accomplish this and this.  This form of style is known as “patterns of sequencing.”  It was no accident that “Now” as well as “And” were placed at the beginning of most phrases.  “What you hear first and last in a speech… can affect the way you respond emotionally or intellectually to a message” (Making Sense of Messages 2005 p.79.)                               

Further uses of style include a respectful tone and use of metaphors.  Some of the president’s phrases include: “Let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me,” and “Here’s what you need to know,” conveying a style like he’s bringing an interesting newspaper article to the audience’s attention.  He also has a stern style such as when he says: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.”  This suggests he would fight ferociously to prevent financial damage to his audience, while still maintaining a gentle tone of urgency.  Obama also used metaphors occasionally to clearly illustrate his message.  He stated: “Our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills” to emphasize the massive accumulation of bills.  He also said: “I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but…” to clearly illustrate his partial agreement with republican beliefs.  According to Aristotle metaphors are important because it requires the audience to involve themselves in making sense of the trope, since metaphors may stir audience memories (Making Sense of Messages 2005 p.142)        

The next canon is delivery which analyzes the speaker’s manner of presentation such as gesture, posture, and appearance.  This also includes assessment of the vocal skill of the rhetor in regard to articulation, pronunciation, rate of speech and pitch (Rhetorical Criticism 2004  p. 32.)  The speech was delivered in Obama’s usual form.  He wore a black suit, with a red tie and an American flag pin.  The appearance suggests patriotic support, yet with the more energetic color tie of red compared to the choice of a calming color such as blue.  This choice is in line with his encouragement of action.  His speech is delivered with good articulation and frequent punctuation on lines that encourage applause or encourage specific action or an understanding of urgency.  He had phrases like: “Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.  Nothing else even comes close.  Nothing else” which led to applause.  He had other phrases: “It saves money, and it saves lives,” which also led to applause.  His speech was full of simple statements that encouraged support from both republican and democratic sides of congress.

Obama also varies his pitch, hand gestures, and rate of speech in collaboration with the message.  He raises his pitch when he is introducing new ideas.  He lowers his pitch when he is concluding or emphasizing a point.  Furthermore, his hand gestures are often open palmed when he is offering new ideas.  The connotation behind this gesture is that he is making an offering for the audience to consider.  When concluding or emphasizing points, he uses a closed fist and points with his thumb or pointer finger.  The connotation behind this gesture is almost scolding like “I have told you already” or “you know better than to let this mistake happen again.”  These gestures are important because the human body advertises what people are thinking, like a billboard (What Every Body is Saying 2008 p. 2.)  If the gestures are not in line with the message, the speaker could appear confused or deceitful.  Finally, the president’s rate of speech increases when leading up to a concept, and slows when delivering details or conclusions.  He would increase his pace when saying lead-up phrases such as: “Because in the United States of America,” then slow for and lower his pitch for key messages: “No one should go broke from health care.”  This shows he is comfortable with the speech itself, and focused on delivering maximum impact on his audience. 

The final canon is memory, which addresses the degree of the rhetor’s control of the speech material and whether the speech was memorized (Rhetorical Criticism 2004  p. 32.)  Although the president is reading a teleprompter, he is very comfortable with the speech.  As illustrated through his variances in pace and pitch, Obama likely has the speech memorized.  The canon of memory also includes the speaker’s ability to tap into the audiences’ memory to create important messages requiring critical consideration (Making Sense of Messages 2005 p.148.)  He makes phrases such as: “Part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for.“  He is tapping into the audiences’ memory of the previous Bush campaign, and the governmental situation at the beginning of his presidency.  This use of memory helps emphasize the nation’s current problems so that congress will be more receptive to the new solutions. 

In conclusion, the different Neo-Aristotelian canons help bring clarity to the rhetor’s methods.  This task pales in comparison to the task of the rhetor.  President Obama had the challenge of summarizing “Thousands and thousands of pages of legislation that are designed to finally build a kind of health care system that is responsive to the needs of the American citizens” (Govtrack.us, 2009) and make it simple, clear, and compelling enough for even extremely skeptical republicans to support.  During the beginning of his speech when he was explaining that the bill would not cover illegal immigrants, the republicans did not even believe him and booed.  One republican even shouted: “You lie!”  Obama continued with his speech relatively unfazed aside from a hardly noticeable scowl in the republican direction.  He would not be hindered by immature remarks or unpleasant boos.

Overall, what makes Obama’s speech and delivery so effective is the focus of a single message throughout the speech.  Every action, every comment, and every change of pace Obama makes works to support the message: “WE need health care reform NOW.”  His red and black attire represent an active business agenda.  His word choice of “we” seeks to get his entire audience united behind one objective.  His repetition of the word “now” continues to instill a sense of urgency and action.  Through use of the Neo-Aristotelian method I discovered one of his effective oratory strategies of pacing.  He talks quickly in lead up comments such as “because” or “the American people need,” then slows down to emphasize conclusions or key details, so the audience can take in the information completely.  I believe both rhetors and critics can take away from this speech is the importance of a single message.  Obama’s speech lasted 47 minutes, and every phrase or comment he made supported his ultimate message.  He effectively appealed to the five rhetorical canons.  He also adhered to the three qualities of credibility within the invention category: integrity, intelligence, and goodwill.  This is important because he brought up a problem, and then developed the audience rapport necessary for the people to trust him with an effective solution: ratification of the Health Care Reform Bill.

Speech Artifact: A link to both the transcript of the health care speech and the video are available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

References

Foss, S. (2004) Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Obama, B. (September 9, 2009) Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care.  Washington, D.C. Transcript from the Office of the Press Secretary.              http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-           Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

Rep. Yarmuth, J. (July 30, 2009) Health Care Reform. Section 72, Transcript posted to             http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-h20090730-72&bill=h111-3200

Navarro, J. (2008) What Every Body is Saying: an Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Speed Reading            People New York, NY: Harper-Collins Publishers.

Stoner, M., & Perkins, S. (2005) Making Sense of Messages: A Critical Apprenticeship in   Rhetorical Criticism Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

As for Logos and Mythos, we see the early Milesians relying more on reason and less on the supernatural. They developed ideas which were founded on their own sense of logic and less on established religious tradition. They questioned earlier beliefs and created their own beliefs. Certainly, those are signs of logos. Yet, it is also very mythos in the sense that their beliefs aren’t as logical or rational as the natural sciences. The articles mention how the early Pre-Socratic philosophers did not engage in much debate and how they could find very little common ground for their beliefs. Based on what I have read, there is very little common ground, and that is a problem with metaphysics in general.

Their ideas, though to a certain degree founded on reason, are vague and obscure. They make very little sense and aren’t as well established as the sciences are. Even the later atomists, who were right about matter being composed of indivisible atoms, were very mythos, since their beliefs weren’t established through empirical evidence. They were just very lucky. The progression of atomic theory, beginning with Dalton, is very logos and serves as a contrast to the Atomists.

Back to the Milesians, their ideas are pretty strange. Thales believed that the unifying element is water. Anaximander believed it was the “intermediate,” whatever that is. Anaximenes believed it was air. Their reasons for believing these elements are somewhat weak. They are like the silly continental philosophers. Even Nietzsche makes more sense than them. Though, to be fair, we know very little about their reasoning and very few of their works survive. A better judgment would be made if we knew more.

Simply by passing off the question of the one and the many as a “search for a metaphysical principle which would give an account of the entire empirical world” does not mean that philosophers can come up with random conjectures that superficially appear to be deep. A lot of metaphysics has to do with science, and this seems to be ultimately a scientific question.

Though, I still have to admit that some of my thought patterns can be considered mythos in that they are irrational and somewhat superstitious. There is no place in my life for religion or faith, so in that sense, I am not mythos. (And yes, I do consider modern religions to be myths, in the sense that ancient Greek religion is now considered a myth. The only reason we don’t call modern religions myths is because people believe in them and we want to be politically correct. We certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.) But, there are certain belief that I hold, none of which I can name off the top of my head, that are somewhat superstitious and I look down upon them with disdain, though I still hang on to them nonetheless. I strive to be as rational as possible and to rid myself of these beliefs, but it is hard to be completely rational. At least I can pride myself in the fact that I am probably more rational and less superstitious than the average human being.

Is Science the Western mythos? I don’t exactly understand what is meant by that question. From my understanding of the reading, mythos and logos are simply two different approaches. Mythos is a superstitious approach that strives to explain things by evoking the gods and logos is a rational approach that strives to explain things with science. In that sense, to say that science is superstitious is inaccurate, since science is the opposite of superstition. Perhaps the question is suggesting that science is the western counterpart to mythos; that while the rest of world was seeking supernatural explanations, the West relied on science. That may be somewhat untrue, since there was science in the rest of the world and there were supernatural and religious elements in the West as well. But, this is more a historical question and I don’t think I know enough to answer it.

Or, maybe the question is suggesting that science is like religion, which is absurd. Many elements of religion, including superstition, rituals, faith, and moral beliefs, are absent in science. Science attempts to explain phenomena through the interpretation of empirical data, rather than through superstition. And, it certainly does not advocate any moral beliefs. If it were to do so, it would no longer be objective or reliable. When scientists advocate certain ethical actions, they are no longer engaged in science. Science is cold and completely indifferent to your feelings. And that is how it remains objective and incorruptible.

The works of skeptics like James Randi and Penn and Teller were really enough to convince me to reject mythos, not that I was superstitious to begin with. After reading more about skepticism, it is obvious how easily humans can be fooled by taking advantage of placebos, our greed, our willingness to trust, ability to see patterns out of randomness, and our willingness to assign meaning to random events. Instead of believing in supposed psychics and alternative medicine, we should test these pseudoscientific claims using science. And this is where logos comes in, because logos adopts this scientific and logical approach and this is the approach that I admire.

Man can’t say that God doesn’t exist, nor prove it.  We can explain away every oddity and mystery in the world, but we can’t explain away on small thing; logos, reason. Now, some may say reason is a product of time and time is a product of the universe, thus reason, too is a product of the universe and therefore, is no evidence of God. In digression however, one might site systematic reason as evidence of God through design. A thought which suggests that, our desire for “ethereal truth” is not to be found in some vaguely quantifiable heavenly realm, but in the very fabric of the universe we live. You can’t argue that reason isn’t universal, whether its science, mathematics, music, art, it all is a product of reason. No other idea or concept is inherent in all things physical and mental. This is the universe of reason and if God exists I would venture to say he is a reasonable being.

e can’t ignore the value of these sterile intellectual disciplines that seem to have work so well for us in the past. So, one must compromise. Though science has found no evidence of God, I say that science itself is evidence of God. It’s hard to dispute intelligent design because it’s hard to imagine that something could come of nothing, but seems to be the nature of the universe. Here we find a brick wall and though theoretical physicals boast the skill to see beyond the beginning of our universe, I feel that any beginning you can see beyond is not a beginning at all. Perhaps I’m thinking pantheism. The thought does seem to be a perfect melding of the God and science, and I believe that in order to understand our meaning and existence we must take into account all human knowledge, collectively and equally.

I’m sure anyone reading this will agree that it’s not uncommon to find a grieving friend, family member, or even stranger exalting happiness as an end to all ends, recognizing the impossibility of knowing when someone will die. There is very little reason to believe life does not end randomly and the evidence for such randomness is overwhelming.

Yet, there’s always the possibility that death, life, and the external world are connected in such a manner that makes it possible for non-random deaths to exist. Our social structure has advanced to a point where we have a science of many various aspects of society. There are regularities in society that are understood through economics and sociology, for example, that seem to be the result of random social constructs. They began as such and evolved to a point where they are no longer this.

Perhaps we are functionally connected to our externalities in varying mental degrees? Perhaps we are endowed with various mental functions that make it easier to preserve ourselves or the people we love (who also are around to help preserve us). Are there regularities in human mental activity that make us mindful of oncoming death? Have we been inculcated by nature with the ability to have various oncoming death premonitions of ourselves and of other people?1

Let me clarify my position by giving you some examples of human predisposition to self preservation. Some people fear height, other people fear certain types of living conditions. Some animals have certain instincts that help them avert situations that are not in their favor. Black bears and loud noises come to mind, cats and water, certain types of smells repel us. Why? It’s a natural predisposition to avoiding deathly experiences. Phobias, do this as well, they are distinct features of our own fear of external objects and conditions. Darwinian Theory makes a good case for this, it makes it clear how we are apt to preserve ourselves, consciously and unconsciously, and it’s apparent by our psychology. I beg the question in these instances, are we, by non-random chance mindful of the multivariate conditions of pre-fatal conditions or environments? If you think about medicine, you find people have become excellent at predicting death in order to avert it. Why have we evolved to such a point that we can compute the chance of death? To what extent does our mind consciously predict death through the senses and to what extent does it unconsciously predict death?

In our dreams we may be able to predict death by the different types of indicators our minds imbibe. I’ll give you one example of a dream an associate of mine had after experiencing a number of urgent phone calls one night. He missed the calls, realized that it had been missed seven times. On that night he dreamt about a relative dying. He noticed that he’d never dreamt like this prior to this dream and noticed its oddness.

On the next day, he was called by a relative and given the news of death. Perhaps the sheer randomness of his dream led to the unconscious non-random premonition of such a death? I say, perhaps.

On a more mythical level, spiritual experiences tell the story of death premonitions. Jesus of Nazareth, in the bible, is said to have felt his death coming on. To what extent was this common sense and to what extent was this a natural predisposition or instinct to death? To what extent was he conscious or unconscious? Are they both connected?

If we accept the tenets of psychology and evolution then it should not be difficult to see how we may be wired in a way that predisposes us to a consciousness of various patterns in the trials of self-preservation. Perhaps evolutionary psychology can assist me in my hypothesis, but if we are social creatures, then shouldn’t we be endowed with a capacity to, at least, experience the oncoming death of other people just as in ourselves? This question, I think, requires a careful study. Perhaps a science of pre-fatal psychology is in line? Perhaps it may be more physical and more neurological? I argue, let us not underestimate anything.

1 There are various epistemological problems here which I am addressing for that specific purpose. I sense certain difficulties arise when I speak of causal relations or unaccountable mental conditions. For the sake of intellectual progress, however, the show will go on.

Global/Local Skepticism

1. Global- Someone who claims we have no knowledge of the external world
2. Local- is a skeptic one particular subject area

JTB (Justified True Belief) Analysis

1. S believes that p;
2. p is true;
3. S is justified in believing that p.
4. If I know that P, then p is certain
5. P is not certain
6. I don’t know that p

Dreaming Skepticism- Skeptical argument making the point that we may be dreaming when we use our senses to conclude things. In which case, we may always be wrong.

Lehrer

Leher contends that refutations such as Moore’s fail to answer the fundamental problem with knowledge claims, namely, that they need to show that they satisfy the justification requirement.

1. To know that p, one must be completely justified in believing that p
2. We are never completely justified in our beliefs,
3. Therefore, we do not have knowledge

Moore

1. If skepticism is true, we do not have knowledge of the external world
2. But we do have knowledge of the external world (hand example)
3. Therefore, skepticism is false

According to Moore, Skepticism is refuted by common sense. He uses his hands to justify this answer.

Wright

If there is a p problem about knowledge or reasonable belief that the external world exists then there is equally a problem with Moore’s knowledge that he has a hand, even when the appearances are at their most compelling.

Moore’s reply to this is that the there is a conviction in the skeptic’s argument that carries the same conviction as his, when he uses his hand as an example.

1. Jones has just written an x on a piece of paper
2. Jones has just voted
3. An election is taking place

Perceptual Knowledge

1. Naive Realism is the common sense theory of perception. Naive realism holds that the view of the world that we derive from our senses is to be taken at face value.
2. Representationalism and Phenominalism say the immediate object of perception is a sense datum or sense impression-which cannot exist apart from our awareness of it. The phenominalists and representationalists differ over the relationships between sense data and the external world.

Bertrand Russell

1. Was a representational realist
2. He came up with the concept of the percept
3. The percept is a causal theory of perception in which mental events are caused by processes in the outside world impinging on the perceiver’s body starting a chain reaction, ending with the percept
4. The process involves physics, physiology, and psychology

An example Russell uses to describe the percept is the following:

“When the light from the fixed star reaches me, I see the star as if it is night and I am looking in the right direction. The light started years ago probably many years ago but my reaction is primarily something that is happening now. When my eyes are open I see the star; when they are shut, I do not. (Russell 116)”

Basically, the light from the star probably started years ago but Russell. The star may no longer be there either, if the star died, its light would still be seen, but it wouldn’t be a star anymore.

Eddington

Eddington argues that there are two ways of perceiving. There is the naive realism and the scientific understanding. The former is substantial, the latter is not. It takes into account atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons…etc.

W.T. Stace

1. Argues that realists, like Russell believe in a separate material world apart from sensations
2. All causality tells us is that there are regularities or experiences in the world
3. For Stace, concepts like atoms gravity, forces and the conservation of energy do not exist only sensations and the minds that perceive them exist
4. Everything else is a mental construction

The Problem of Induction

1. From experiences we assume the past will be like the future, but we are not justified in believing this
2. Deductive arguments are useless because they only contain information about the past and present, not the future

Scientific Method

Carl Hempel, a leading advocate of the deductive-nomological model, which holds scientific explanation as deductively valid arguments proceeding from general laws and initial conditions to the phenomena to be explained.

Confirmation

• H O If it rained, the street is wet
• O The street is wet
• Then H It rained. (it may be that someone hosed the street down)

In the scientific method, we are affirming the consequent, and this is a logical fallacy. In the case above, we see that raining is not a necessary condition for the streets to be wet.

Falsification

Popper: Rationality consists in trying to falsify universal theories, that is, attempting to refute bold theories. Popper accuses Marxism and Freudianism of being pseudo sciences because they fail to search for or take into account disconfirming evidence.

H O If light has mass it, then it will bend

• O Light did not bend
• H Therefore, light has no mass

We can use the example of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which made the point that if light was bent by gravity as light traveled from a star to the earth then the theory would hold. If it did not, and it continues unaffected by the gravitational pull, the theory would fail.

Problem:

It is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses)

1. If H and A, and A(2), and A(3), then O
   1. Not O
   2. Not H or Not A(1), Not A(2), Not A(3)

Basically, because a hypothesis relies on auxiliary assumptions, then the hypothesis is never conclusive.

Progressivist View: Lakatos

According to Lakatos, in the place of the criterion of falsification, he developed a notion of scientific progress. That is, a research program is scientific if it leads to fruitful and interesting further projects. It need not be a true theory, only a challenging and progressive one. If it fails to generate new experiments, and projects then it is degenerate.

Pessimist: Feyerabhen

Argues that science contains no special, let alone superior method to other disciplines and that its high position in our society is fraud. There should be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation of state and religion.

Perhaps this is a sign of getting old on my part, but it really should be called “piece leads to orgasm day” – at least that’s truth in advertising. I’m skeptical that people will mark their calendars, go out to the local bar and pick someone up all to promote world “piece” because…they do that every day of the week and peace has little to do with it.

The organizers argue that more people should experience the feeling of peace after sex as a way to relax and enter a meditative state. Yes, that’s true – sex does blank your mind and relax you, but it can lead to domestic violence when she wants to cuddle after and he rolls over and starts snoring.

The woman who thought up this stunt is 77 years old, and it seems she has done naked protests before. In one case, she has stripped down and joined other activists in spelling “peace” with their naked bodies. At 77, maybe she and her group should’ve spelled out “wrinkled”, but I’m sure after she was arrested for public indecency, they had plenty of time to do that in jail.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for world peace, but not world piece. Sex is something to be shared and viewed as an intimate form of communication within the confines of a marriage, not as a protest for something. This goes back to using sex as a new kind of weapon. By the nature of the protest, unmarried couples will be joining in on this fad day, and that’s not a good thing.

I have just a couple of questions about this, and I’ll let the readers decide for themselves if they want to participate in the “orgasms for peace” day. One, do they have a logo for this event? Is it going to be printed on usable condoms available for sale on their website ? It’s no good if people don’t know you’re protesting. Are they going to sell the condoms by the single since there are many people who will want to copulate for world peace and get their once a year quota taken care of at the same time? On December 23, will the free clinics be open around the country on Saturday for those who got more than world peace the night before?

quazen.com articles by this writer can be found here

socyberty.com articles can be located here

relijournal.com articles are here

picable.com photographic images are here here