Lanham's Argument

I think that Lanham's argument of the philosopher vs. the rhetorician is a plausible one. I agree with the idea that the internet has changed the way we teach and gather information. When Lanham states that he " continue[s] to think that it is the convergence of technology, the arts and letters, and the democratizing of higher education that poses our paramount cultural and educational explanandum" I feel that he is saying that the internet has taken education to a more improved and desireable level. Information is much easier to obtain therefore making it more simple to write papers with multiple points of views.
However, the rise of the internet in the classroom also presents students with more of a possiblility of finding incorrect information and using it for their papers. When a book/magazine/journal enters the library, it is understood that the source is credible and somewhat trustworthy because it is written by someone that is qualified on that subject. The internet is an entirely different world in itself, and just like the real world, there is an evil side to the internet and the faulty information that it could bring to students and therefore transfer into their composititons.
I think that excercises such as blogging would be useful just to get students to start ideas for writing and to have a place to discuss things with fellow classmates, however, there has to be so much monitoring that I'm afraid that teaching a composition class entirely based on internet could be harmful.

MY OBJECT

I have no clue what object I want to choose for my rhetorical analysis. I have thought of many ideas--my brother has a Jack Daniels poster that I saw this weekend that has the date it was established and all that good stuff...but I don't think that is enough info for a paper! I also thought about the tv, a digital camera...
I was in target today and bought some dish detergent that was safe for the environment (go green!) and I thought, "hey, I can use this as my object" but, I don't know if that is ok either because I am uncertain of the claims/data/warrant that would apply. Obviously I need to schedule a meeting with Kevin because I am lost and now that I have written this, I am a little stressed out. I am probably making it out to be more difficult than it is, atleast I hope!

I had to edit my blog b/c I forgot to add that humanism sounds like it could be a wonderful way to live, but I am not a believer that we will ever live in a humanistic society.

LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHOS

I am one of the few students in this class who is not going into teaching after graduation. Up until last semester, my plan was to teach high school English, but instead I am going to grad school for Psychology. Even though I am not going to be teaching composition (atleast not in the near future, I assume anything is possible down the road) this class has given me tools that I can apply to grad school and hopefully to my clients when I am done with licensure, etc.
First off, any writing that is done with the goal of satisfying logos, ethos, and pathos is already to a good start. Many of the writers in the 15th and 16th century appealed to these same standards. It sucks your reader in and allows them to connect with you and your topic in an effortless way. This will help me when I am a psychologist because I have to be able to have a strong connection with my clients, and this will be impossible without the use of strong rhetoric.
I feel that logos, ethos, and pathos are a way that I can validate buying something that is a little too expensive or something I really don't need. For example, I am ADDICTED to buying designer jeans...it's my thing. Some girls have an addiction to shoes, purses, or jewlery, but I love to spend money on cute jeans (DON'T JUDGE ME!) Anyway, whenever my mom asks me where and how much my jeans were I automatically point out that they have a warranty or that it is a special denim that won't stretch/rip holes ---just to prove to my mom that there actually was some logic behind buying the jeans. Whenever I am doing this, I am simply pointing out the logos, ethos, and pathos that the jean company sold to me to validate the ridiculously high price....and it works all too well.

Class so far--

Class this far has been really surprising. I took this class last semester and had to drop it after a week because there was a time conflict with work...but it's a good thing b/c it was super lame (compared to now). I am glad that I am in it this semester because we have taken very different approaches to language and composition. This class has helped me to view language and rhetoric in a more positive light. I know that it's getting me somewhere because after class I am always thinking about cannibals or feral children or I'm analyzing how language is persuasion. It is kind of ridiculous, but I feel like that is the approach that needs to be taken with students b/c so much stuff is thrown in their face that whenever they leave school they don't really process that information. If topics were discussed that related more to their lives and caught their attention then it would be beneficial--I think the feralchildren.com would be a good site for students to check out, because it would show the importance that language has, but I don't know the rules about teaching cannibalism....
I am skeptical about having students relate to the material I am teaching BIG time, it's not really anything about composition, just in general. I really think that the approaches that we have been taking in class will help in the classroom setting, but I think that as soon as students are forced to work on things like the TAKS test, etc. then they will again view composition with a negative attitude.

Rhetoric

The discussion in class on Tuesday that all language is inherently about persuasion through rhetoric is another interesting topic. I agree with the idea that through the majority of language we are trying to persuade someone or we have been persuaded to act in a certain way or say a certain thing. Since language is how our thoughts originate then it is easy to see how this theory can hold strong. The only problem that I see with this is that there has to be some time where we use language and it is not persuasion; possibly when we are talking to ourselves or writing in a diary.
I think that there are multiple benefits to realizing that language is persuasion. One of these benefits would be that the sooner you grasp this idea then you hold a lot of power in your hands. Now, instead of using language just to communicate, you can master the art of rhetoric and therefore will be able to learn to convince people using only language. Politicians are a very good example of this: Barack Obama is a wonderful public speaker who uses his speeches to convince and prepare America for the times that lie ahead. I think that while teaching a composition class, rhetoric would be a very good place to start because it proves to the student that this is not some boring class where you write some sappy story; instead, it shows that composition class is important because it can give a student the tools to persuade and convince the public, which can be useful to any person going into any job field. If language is used correctly it can save your butt when you are in trouble or get you a promotion. In a composition class, I feel that it is important to get this idea across to young students and encourage them to view language and rhetoric in a whole different light.

Cannibalism...sick

I never thought that in an English class I would be discussing cannibalism, but it is surprisingly refreshing to apply language to something other than books, etc. Many people in class brought up interesting points about humans being innately cannabilistic, but I think that this idea is a little far-fetched, but I have been raised to view cannibals in a negative light. I agree that we are above animals because of the use of language; it is how we create and shape our society and what is acceptable. If humans did not have this language capacity, I think it is possible that a human could/would consume another human, but I don't think that it would be the food of choice. I don't believe that humans are, by nature, evil beings. I think that humans are selfish, but for every bad thing done we can find some good as well.
Another thing, humans are not the only animals that have acquired language. Birds, dolphins, bees, and other animals have developed some form of communication. While it is NO WHERE near advanced as what humans have, it is still a form of communication. I think that language combined with logic and reasoning are what places us above animals and I believe that this logic and reasoning are what guide us to make decisions that may go against what our instinct is telling us to do (like eat another human).