This was it - the final push! For this paper, we compiled the thought we put into nearly all of our short papers and class discussions to address three of the main six propositions our professor offered us at the beginning of the quarter. This paper was the longest academic work I'd ever produced up until this point, at 7218 words - the previous longest being my Extended Essay for my IB program in high school, at 4000. It was a long, difficult couple of days to organize and write out all of my complex thoughts from a quarter's worth of work. By the end, the lines were blurring together before my eyes and I had no idea whether I'd produced something coherent. It ended up being effective though - I wound up with a 4.0 in the course.
0 Comments
In this Honors class, for every reading assigned, we are to write a paper in response, consisting of a summary of our reading, and our own commentary in response. In producing these, we are working towards building a repertoire to draw on to write our final term paper at the end of the quarter. Most of these are fairly standard and don't merit commenting on, but I particularly enjoyed #9, our assignment for this week. The paper was on "The Grand Inquisitor," a chapter from The Brothers Karamazov. Our professor cautioned us that this was one of the trickier readings of the quarter, and recommended that we treat it with care. I took this to heart, carefully reading both the chapter itself and some explanatory summaries (as our professor recommended) and became quite invested in my commentary at the end. My rambling must have proven effective, as my professor asked if he could save my paper for use as an example in future classes. Paper Nine: The Grand Inquisitor
In this chapter from “The Brothers Karamazov,” titled “The Grand Inquisitor,” one of the characters, Ivan, tells a story-within-a-story to his brother Alyosha. In this story, Christ returns to Earth in sixteenth-century Spain during the Inquisition and begins performing miracles, but is stopped and imprisoned by an old man with the title of Grand Inquisitor. The Inquisitor explains to Christ that in the time since he was last on Earth, resisting the three temptations of Satan, the Church has taken over the work of looking after mankind. The Inquisitor makes the claim that mankind cannot be trusted with the freedom Christ has earned them; they are too weak to resist the temptation of sin. Rather than live their lives in moral quandary only to be damned in their afterlife, the Inquisitor proposes that the role of the Church is to take freedom and control away from mankind in order to provide comfort and safety in life. Since the vast majority will be damned anyway, it is more worthwhile for their lives to be easy and happy than free. Privileges in this life – chances for pleasure or sin – and the moral struggles that accompany them are outside their control, instead awarded by the Church for obedience. The Inquisitor then individually refutes Christ’s choices to resist Satan’s temptations. Christ demands too much of man, puts too much blind faith in the holiness of mankind. In his refusal to turn stone into bread, though Christ ensures that mankind does not blindly follow him for the reward of food and security, he also condemns them to the tortures of hunger. The Inquisitor claims that freedom from hunger is more valuable to mankind that freedom of choice. In resisting the temptation to perform a miracle, Christ condemns mankind to ongoing crises of faith. A miracle would ensure their compliance with the beliefs and workings of God, but man must now instead choose faith, which proves largely too difficult for them. In resisting the temptation of power over all the world’s kingdoms, Christ again chooses freedom over compliance and security for mankind as a whole. The Inquisitor claims that the Church has taken over this duty in Christ’s stead, offering man the chance to trade their free will for comfort and security. The Church will look after all of mankind, not just the chosen few who can live up to the challenges of freedom that Christ has set. The Inquisitor argues overall that a society governed in despotism is preferable over a free one, as it is far easier and more comfortable than a society hinging on choice. Christ listens to the Inquisitor’s tale in silence, then responds with a kiss upon the lips. The Inquisitor frees him and requests he never come again. At the end of this story, Ivan asks Alyosha for his response, and Alyosha in turn kisses his brother’s lips. “Man is condemned to be free.” This is perhaps the most famous quote from existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, and also the line that was ringing in my ears for the duration of this chapter. The points that the Grand Inquisitor proposes are compelling. There is truth to the idea that humans are fallible, fall prey time and time again to vice and pettiness, amorality and apathy. Why waste a life suffering, trying to avoid damnation, if the result appears all but inevitable? But is this reason enough not to allow us to try? To momentarily impose Kant’s categorical imperative, stating that any moral rule must be able to form a universal imperative: if society operated on the principle that only those who can achieve success should be offered the opportunity for anything – majors, jobs, marriage, parenting, to use a few common modern examples – then our society would be one of an elite few awarded these privileges and an awful lot of rejects living empty lives on the outskirts. We could keep raising standards and slicing populations until almost no one could ever attempt anything for fear of failing. Is this really the human condition we wish to promote? If we do not allow people to try to be good, to try to grapple with their own moral conditions and obligations for fear that they cannot possibly be successful, we deny room for opportunity, for mistakes and learning and growth. These are all fundamental traits of being human, characteristics that any person from childhood to old age can recount. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” “Fall down seven times, get up eight.” Our speech and idioms, our nursery rhymes and fairy tales, are all riddled with second chances, trial and error and eventual triumphs. Though the Grand Inquisitor offers a practically utopian view of life, a world without problems or mistakes, a gentle carriage ride to oblivion, he also denies mankind its nature, in all its scrappy, screwed-up glory. Whether religiously granted or otherwise, freedom is our curse. We are condemned, perhaps even damned, but we hold our own agency. We can try ridiculous hobbies that last a week, fall in love and out of it again, shed career paths and personalities like trying on hats. We can find those that love us and hate us and meet hundreds that fall in between. We can stumble, lose our ways, find terrible paths that will linger in our bloodlines for generations, see war and devastation leave their scars on this earth. But through all of it, we have the power to choose. We are free to live our lives, love our lives, lose our lives. We can choose what is right, what is good, maybe once in a lifetime, both. For better or worse, we are condemned to be free. I've decided to attach an email exchange I had with my Honors 230 professor. I was excited upon receiving the first email, delighted that he'd asked me for "advice," but quickly became daunted as the exchange continued and he pressed me to delve into a deeper understanding of our course material. In hindsight, I was glad to have had the discussion we did, and I think it helped me to grow as a student and as a thinker. Transcription of Email Exchange:
Hi, Zoe: You mentioned today that you had already taken a run at Chapter Three of Language of Leadership. So. Maybe you can do me a favor. This chapter is, at least for me, a difficult one to deal with in class. Over the years since the book came out in 2001, I've tried various approaches. I'm never really totally pleased with my efforts in design for any class session, but this one rarely seems to get off the ground. Perhaps you can take another look at the chapter and the study notes and give me some suggestions as to how we might proceed. Nothing complicated, please, no other texts to bring in (I've tried that, and things just get messier). One clue you gave me was your reaction to the second section of the chapter. Ecology of persuasion. I can tell you (and will tell everybody else, one way or another) that if I were to come out with a second edition --not going to happen -- I'd rewrite parts of this section. So instead of starting with the first section, maybe we might start with the section that seems to get some people into a muddle? Or what? I'm not sending this out as a blanket email to everyone. I am, however, sending it to you. So, if you would, please get back to me. Thanks very much for your time, Roger Hello Professor, First of all, thank you for thinking to contact me. I studied philosophy in high school, and am entranced by the study of ethics. As a creative writing major, I also spend a lot of time thinking about the effectiveness, repercussions, and consequences of everything we write and read. So I was particularly excited to discuss this upcoming reading. I even think I have a fairly solid grasp on it - though I suppose I’ll find out when I submit my paper! One strategy that I’ve found helpful when dealing with a complex reading such as this one in a classroom environment is the ‘jigsaw’- breaking the reading down into parts, with various groups becoming ‘experts’ on various individual sections, then sharing what they’ve found with the rest of the class. I see potential to do that here with various subheadings, particularly the “three choices” (ordering of the goods, selection of arguments, and choosing how to talk). You could even try it in smaller sections, such as the four basic types of arguments under the ‘choices of arguments’ subheading. I think breaking the chapter down might help student to wrap their heads around the material. As for the Ecology of Persuasion section - while I feel like I have a fair handle on it, I’ll be interested to see if my understanding aligns with yours and the rest of the class. I wonder if phrasing the content slightly differently might allow students to better comprehend. If I were to summarize this section (and I will!), I think I would view it in terms of cultural context - placing words and language and persuasion within the context of the cultures we inhabit or encounter. In my view, this language might be more accessible/understandable to students in the class. I think our previous discussion of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” will also help with comprehension of this chapter. However, I think it most likely would not be helpful to start with this section - if students don’t have a solid grasp or understanding on the preceding half of the chapter, I think they will be at a loss to understand the ideas here. In my view, it is hard to place ethics within the context of culture if you don’t understand the ethics in the first place. I have no idea whether you have tried any of these strategies or whether they will prove effective, but there’s my two cents. I hope it helps in some way. Sincerely, Zoë Mertz, UW class of 2022 Hi, Zoe: Thanks for getting back to me. What you have helps. I've used variants of jigsawing over the years. Depends on what I'm after. And that, of course, is the first order of business. I'm trying to sort through the many learning objectives we can put on the table, trying to settle on the top one or two. Rather like today. What I was really after: consideration of the notion of seeking information far in advance, and trying to identify why we sometimes don't do that. What I was hoping for (and still hope for, as people reflect a bit on implications), is an understanding that you could revise the traditional response to the first question (what would you have done) in light of what you have now come to see as the necessary first step -establishing relationships with town influentials, so that when things went wrong, you would know what to do--in this case, most likely nothing. The subsidiary learning objective deals with questions of identity, of raising the question -which we'll return to again -of what happens when you don't know who you are. And here I hope folks might come back to the interesting notion expressed here and there that Blair had to show them who was boss. Except all he did was be directed by jeering mob to do something he says he didn't want to do. Some boss. At any rate. Learning objectives for Wednesday, and I'm thinking out loud here with you as we keep on going with this conversation. Sometimes in past years we get stuck on classification. For example, people will get into long arguments about whether a given argument is an argument from definition or actually an argument from similitude. We can spend a good deal of valuable time on this sort of thing. I've never found it of interest. What I want is for people realize that there are a variety of arguments and each argument carries a certain freight, with certain implications. People use arguments all the time, of course What I'm looking for is a heightened awareness of what it means to choose one rather than another. I also want some understanding of what happens when you mix arguments with the same audience. And what happens when you use one argument with one audience and another argument with another audience. Much of the chapter is pretty much straightforward stuff. I suppose what I'm after are considerations of the implications for your own behavior. As for part two, ecology. I don't quite know where you're going with the culture context. Where I'm going is in some part on page 68. My example of arts teachers and music teachers. That's one example. There are others. So when you worked through the section, what were the main drivers for you? What do we want to tease out? And what are the implications? And then, that nasty little section on ecology and ethics of response. What did you make of that one? Did you come up with examples? Do you think it would be useful to ask people to come up with examples for this last section (as well as the basic notion of ecology of persuasion)? Again, the question, what are the implications of all this stuff? People can get really good at "learning" stuff and kicking it back to you. There are X number of basic arguments. They are as follows. Great. Got that one done. Next. When choosing *how* to talk, one needs to pay attention to terminology; euphemism and clear language; sentence structure, order, and syntax; and delivery. Got it. Next. One might say that if that's all I'm looking for, assign the chapter, and then give a lecture based on the chapter, and everybody can get back to O-Chem. No, of course we're looking for more. So please do me a favor, continue the conversation, circle around this stuff, and let's see what emerges, if you would be so kind. If other matters beckon (and I do know, as I think you know I know, that you all do take other classes besides this one), that's fine, just say so and I'll thank you all the same. Creative writing. My favorite in high school, other than debate. I had beautiful teachers. Villanelles. Sonnets. Short stories. Lots and lots of writing. And reading. One of the teachers wrote in my senior year yearbook, "dare I hope you will settle down and *work*, Dr. Soder"? Yeah, well, you see, it's this way . . . . Thank you, Zoe, Roger Hello, I definitely understand how defining and classifying terms can bog down a discussion, but at the same time, I think it can be helpful to students not used to the material to have definitions to wrap their minds around in ensuing discussions. That being said, I think the chapter does a fair job of defining its terms already, but sometimes I find it helpful to acknowledge common definitions as a group before proceeding. The same applies to the ‘learning’ of the chapter’s base arguments. I suppose this is the intention behind the summaries in our papers; it is so much easier to have sophisticated conversations surrounding such material as this if you can first clearly understand and explain what the material is even saying. This is why I feel that touching base in class to ensure everyone understands these foundational ideas can greatly help students moving forward to be able to contribute meaningfully to more insightful conversations. I do agree that a more compelling discussion derives from the application of argument, and the combination of argument with audience. I wonder if some kind of matching exercise might prove interesting here - students are presented with various topics and audiences and must select a type of argument to use, and discuss its implications. Alternatively, students could be given an argument and an audience and discuss to what extend the combination would be appropriate or effective. I think what I was going for with my idea of cultural context is an understanding of how different arguments are applied / come across in various situations. I was placing these ideas in my own words, in language I’m more comfortable using and understanding. I feel that placing an argument within its situational context (which can often be culturally derived as audience identity, time period, place, and values are taken into account) is key to determining its persuasive power, as well as its ethics (as you suggest at the top of page 69: “One form of argument is not necessarily superior ethically in all circumstances.”) I also found it highly compelling to consider the quote: “What kind of a world do you claim and constitute when you choose a given form of argument?” This considers implications, delves into various potential systems of ethics, and could potentially lead to quite meaty conversation. I found the brief segment on the ecology and ethics of response to be fascinating. I think in particular in our current political climate, at least I myself feel a strong responsibility to act as an ethical recipient and responder of ideas, and I believe many of my generation feel similarly. How do we respond to all that is happening in the world in an ethical way? Is it enough to just consume information, to digest it critically in our own minds, or do we have some responsibility to respond, to counter? How do we balance this with the demoralizing sense that our one small voice can make very little difference in the vast sea of corruption and injustice that surrounds us? I actually think this segment is one the class could very much enjoy discussing - it connects well to many of our questions from the first day of class - and I think a chance to brainstorm and discuss examples could be very engaging. I must confess that I don’t know if I myself could generate examples based on the basic notion of the ecology of persuasion - perhaps I need to go back and delve into that section in greater depth. Thank you for the continued discussion, and the chance for me to explain and deepen my own views. Zoë Mertz, UW class of 2022 Hi, Zoe: Thanks for yours. Some responses, starting with your ending comments on ecology of persuasion. Please go to page 68 and page 87. On 68, you see the example of arts teacher and two ways to argue for having arts in the schools -- increase test scores or because arts are a part of the human condition. There are consequences for which way you want to argue, right? And on 68, why we need to desegregate our schools. One argument - test scores will go up. Another (better) argument - because it's the right thing to do. So now go to page 87 for a consideration of these two examples in terms of ecology of persuasion. If the arts teachers use the "test scores will go up" argument, and the school board gets enthusiastic and gives arts a ton of money and time, then what does this tell others, such as the music teachers, they in turn should do? Well, use the crummy but effective "test scores will go up" argument. And, looking at the deseg example, if it looks like deseg is going to be supported in the district where the "test scores" argument was used, then people in other school districts might well be influenced to use the same form of argument. So, in effect, how someone chooses to talk here, has the potential to have a strong influence how how someone else choose to talk there. You can think, too, of negative political advertising, attack ads, all the crap we've all seen year after year. A politician somewhere might say "we're going to run a clean campaign, no negative ads." And the campaign manager says, "Okay, but lose if you want to. We know down-and-dirty ads work." So if you're a politician out here somewhere and you learn about a race somewhere else, a close race, and attack ads appeared to make the difference, well, there you are. So, between arts/music teachers, and why deseg, and the long-term, across-distance examples of attack ads working (well, working in a one sense, disastrous in another), you have some examples, and from here l'm figuring you can identify a lot more. That last section of the chapter. Our ethical obligation to respond. And here, too, I'm back to your second paragraph. Implications, applications. I think that's where we'll go, mostly. The questions you raise in your antepenultimate paragraph are ones we indeed can and should talk about, one way or another, on Wednesday. Connect all of what you are to Proposition Six. Did you like "antepenultimate" dropped in there? Years ago I dropped it on a student and she came with one that topped mine: preantepenultimate. Wow. I don't mind using "penultimate" in a response. Penultimate is a reasonably common term. But using antepenultimate or the even more obscure one . . .no, I won't do that! Thanks, Zoe. I have to circle around things, talk things out, go here and there, and it's useful to have the conversation we're having, useful for me, and, I believe, useful for you. Roger |
|