Heinrichs in Real Life

Person: Look at that hotel. Why would anyone stay there?

Me: But it seems very decent.

Person: Yeah but it's in a random place.

-Question: values/choice.
-Answer: values.
-Comeback: I don't event know what that is.

I blamed him of thinking badly of the quality of the hotel and refuted by saying that I thought it was decent. He then changed the subject to the location, when we were talking of the quality. This is precisely what John Heinrichs says not to do when arguing about something: never to confuse values, choice and blame in an argument. Call me a rule breaker but I will learn how to debate properly.

It is extremely irritating for people to say non-related things as comebacks when debating. It is also easier for that inoffensive conversation to become a fight. Take note because you don't want your marriage to become a blend of choices, values and blames err'day.

No Different Than Art

The art of lying is often underestimated. People think they are "fluent with sarcasm" and stuff but it actually takes a lot of skill. Lying is all about rhetoric. We are constantly manipulating people either consciously or unconsciously. Convincing is rhetoric. We get what we want through rhetoric. So even if you don't know what it is, you use it everyday. We choose to dress the way we do because we want to depict a certain personality: rhetoric. We persuade people into thinking something about us.

"People say that oxygen or love are vital for us...pfff keep talkin'." - Rhetoric

This phenomenon is the same thing as performing. It is a mask that we put on and we have to act according to the context.

In Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs we see the dominance and power that rhetoric has on us. People like to think that persistence is what will win a debate. Actually, most people don't care what you have to say so it is better to make them believe they are right. Imposing your ideals to people isn't and effective technique. Persuasion is the key the key to every lock because persuasion, just like God, acts in mysterious ways. There is no need to be persistent to be persuasive.

THE Debate

The arduous debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama was arduous. 

Their use of rhetoric was extremely strong. People had already unconsciously selected and graded from one to ten certain things the moment the candidates walked in, the moment the stage was visible, the moment they shook their hands, and so on. 

Let's start off by saying that Romney is a candidate that has not been constant with his opinions and decisions, a big problem for the president of the United States to handle. Yes, Obama is the president so we could say he has more practice, preparation and knowledge. That is an advantage that has shown to be a significantly large one. On the other hand, he has much bigger flaws to point at. So what Romney can do (or does) with those flaws is paraphrase and promise he will change that. He will make America strong again. 

There are certain words or common informal frases that shouldn't be used in these type of formal debates, because since they are talking about a whole country, they can't talk about certain groups in a degrading way. I felt Romney went too off track with that guideline. He talked about "the poor" and said "kill" to many times. The spontaneousness and randomness of these words in a sentence was sometimes shocking for our ears to listen to because of the context it was in. We take a place as expectators. We want something good or bad to happen because we are conscious that these candidates are being watched by a large portion of the world and the pressure they behold. Based on that, we automatically decide what they should or shouldn't do. When a candidate does or says something we think may affect him, we feel worried or uncomfortable. That is the type of pathos Mitt Romney transmitted. I don't love him but I felt awkward when he said things that were supposed to appeal the the public but didn't go along with the context they were supposed to go into. 

Obama, on the other side, was really defensive. I was worried that wasn't going to work out for him because it showed him a little too desperate to topple Romney. Obama transmitted much more ethos than Romney did, and made some jokes now and then trying not to lose his "swag." That is what Obama has, it's swag. He already has a certain trait that when he says something with a ceremonial register, everyone gets up and aplaudes. Romney doesn't have that. There is no spirit with what he is saying, maximizing his stereotype extreme-republican side.

And let's not forget, it's not the rest of the world that's voting. It's only the United States. 

#Controversy

I have a really weird fetish for good descriptions. There's this amazing one in Dreams from My Father in which Obama tells us the whole story of why he didn't know his father and the tragedy of his departure. That only part is told in third person similar to the begging of fairy tales. For example: "...the young couple married, and she bore them a son, to whom he bequeathed his name" (10). As I read this, I could imagine baby Obama under the sea with red hair and fins being held by his father Barack Sr. in a little shell ready to be baptized. He sounded like a prodigy or a kid that would become a legend. Just like in fairy tales. What's curious is that only that part was written that way. Strange, huh.

Only Barack Obama can pull the "awkward" word without it being awkward.

One of the most delicate and controversial topics on this ecumene; racism. A subject that is constantly touched and mentioned by Obama, considering his life has been surrounded by it. He shows a really light and  moderate tone against this issue, but is clearly against it. There is a sense of resentment with Americans when he says "...although their ideas would never congeal into anything like a firm ideology; in this, too, they were American" (17). It is not insulting nor degrading, but unconsciously we feel it as a ideological punch. 

In general, the introduction to Barack Obama's life is actually really personal, full of weapons that could destroy him, but he still ceases to remain in silence. It is compelled by a constant battle of logos and pathos that include topics that are hard to handle but Obama does so in such subtleness that even an insult may seem lighthearted. The way he talks about racism gives him a status that no other white could have, because he lived it. There is no arrogance within his status, just a subconscious shift in our minds regarding who is Obama. We are never sure, he's like an electron; constantly changing.

But really, who is Barack Obama?

Baracking Obama

Barack Obama. 

The first thing that comes to our minds: he's the president of the United States of America. By knowing this, we relate him to formality. A president must be everything but informal. Although, I do believe it's incorrect to assume that because of his background, think his memoir would be as formal as his speeches and the public figure Barack Obama must portray. 

"...the animals shit on our curbs..." (4) O.M.G. he said shit. 

It's hard to read this book without thinking that he is the president. But obviously, that's his aim. I guess. Using some pathos now and then. As I began reading Dreams from My Father I was surprised by his eloquence and fluency when trying to describe something. It gives the reader some sort of comfort. The interesting thing here is that he doesn't necessarily use pathos to inflict that feeling in us. We just feel it.

We recently discussed in class how there is a new movement in literature that is all about confessing. Saying things that no one else wants to say is what interests readers. They enjoy it because they can relate to something that the author had the courage to publish but they don't have the courage to say it. If there ever comes someone to blame, the author will be guilty, not us. But we still think about it. 

Obama reveals the truth. I am not only referring to Dreams from My Father only, this applies to his politics as well. As soon as he is informed his father has died, Obama says he's "trying to measure [his] loss" (5). We all expect Obama devastated and slowly scurrying his body down the wall while sobbing. No. He isn't sure how he is supposed to react, even if that sounds like he didn't appreciate his father, it's the truth. He then explains that he didn't know his father very well so that is why he has to measure the situation.

There is no better description for what I imagine of that feeling. These types of phrases are what makes the reader identified. He cares to describe moments and feelings as delicately as he can to be able to transmit the message. What I really mean, is that Obama writes about something that could be sad but by his tone, we feel completely serene; cozy. 

To be honest, I am unfamiliar with this type of tone/writing. Normally, authors use pathos or they don't. With this book it's a very twisted pathos that aims for no empathy yet it it does flirt with what could be a lighthearted tone. 

I don't like to think of this memoir as an intentional strategy for his campaign, but it sure served as one. At the end of the day, books always have a purpose. 

A Relative Truth

I have constancy with my opinion about it being fundamental for us to be able to adjust punctuation, grammar and spelling to a text. A writer always has a purpose. Without being able to adjust these things, there wouldn´t be a more interesting way of giving clues to the reader about the purpose of the text.

In ¨Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?¨ Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner have a confrontation about the use (proper or not) of language. Extensively surrounded by logos, both articles argue that they are correct. If I were to select an article as the best, I would give it to Bryan A. Garner. Although I am not in accordance with his ideals and he´s somewhat tight and penny-pinching, he is who uses his arguments as a shield, making his point of view fully understandable.

As soon as I typed the title´s article in Word, it told me it was a fragment. Is it, really, a fragment, word? There. Microsoft Word is totally prescriptivist. Who are you to say it is or it isn´t? And even if it was, it wouldn´t matter that much.

I´m going to pull the ¨everything is perceptual and relative¨ here. Take art, for example. Contemporary art is completely free and permits random and what would be antiquely considered pointless to be a form of expression. The same thing happens with writing. In fact, writing is a form of art. With writing, we need prescriptive-determined errors. As well as it serves as a way of rhetoric, it gives tone to what is being said.

Ensayo sobre la ceguera, a book that doesn´t contain a single point throughout the whole book, certainly was written this way for a reason. Looking at is through a prescriptivist point of view, the whole novel would be a very long sentence. Thus making the novel utterly and unquestionably wrong, conveying no special message. What I’m trying to say, is that prescription takes away the purpose, leaving the text with the sometimes bitter taste of logos.

Going back to my Einstein moment, writing, as well as art, are both conceptual. What shapes a text is not entirely the words. The path to comprehending a text is by looking at the syntax, diction, punctuation, etc. We gather all of this information to understand what is being said. And most importantly, the purpose.  

Although I do have to say, that if it were not for the basis of written language, we would not be able to make these opinions. To break the rules, you must know them and have followed them previously to be conscious of what you are doing.

Teachers must tell us what is wrong and right in our fourth grade-essay papers.