Spanish Scripts

Once again I wasn't very fond of this article. I found it very odd that the author had an entire section regarding visual culture and visual subject but had no actual visuals in this entire section. It seemed very  contradicting to me to state how important they were yet, not include them. I also thought it was interesting that in this section the author discusses how sight is the most noblest sense of all. I feel that the past rhetoricians we have studied would not agree with this. Rhetoric is about persuasion so I feel hearing would be the most valuable sense of all. However, the author states that sight is the most noblest sense but, from their on out groups sight and hearing together.

I feel that once the author breaks down specific objects such as Tocapus and quipus that would have been a place to add images. I tried to visually picture these items based on the descriptions but it would have been easier if the author included some pictures. I also thought it was interesting when the author 

states "visual events and visual culture imply the existence of a visual subject." This reminded me of when people say behind every picture there is a story but often that story isn't blatant. Often authors just leave their portrait open to the interpretation of the viewer but this can lead to visual subjectivity. 

Tocapus and quipus were mentioned multiple times throughout the article. Why do you think these visual representations were so important? I get that they represent the culture I was just slightly confused why there was such an intense focus on them. 

Another connection I made while reading this article was regarding silence. The article discusses the importance of silence which reminded me of the Egyptian article we read last week. I think its interesting that both articles put an emphasis on the importance of silence. I felt this was interesting because, when reading about Western rhetorics silence wasn't a huge aspect of it. 

Also, after reading the article I noticed a focus on various different shapes such as the triangle and the rectangle. Why do think this article focused so much on shapes? Do you think there was a significance or was it just simply a component of the article? 

the article also states; " Our exposure to visual texts give us the opportunity to narrate events in a new, nonverbal way." Do you think visuals can be truly non verbal? Or will there always be an underlying verbal context. 

American Rhetorics

I have to start by saying I did not particularly like this reading. I felt that it asked so many questions back to back that it was hard to process them all. At one point it asked five critical thinking questions in a row that left my brain feeling over loaded. It also in my opinion jumped around a lot and I often felt lost.

Despite the confusion at points it was still a very informative piece of writing. I thought it was interesting when the article raised the point of, who has the authorization to speak for who? This brought me back to our discussion on race and how different ethnicities feel the need to speak for other ethnicities. It is common to make assumptions regarding other cultures with out first attempting to assimilate within the culture. As this article points out it is important to decipher between people of an actual population and people committing ethnicity fraud. It is up to readers and listeners to have enough knowledge to actively know what they are reading.

After reading the three chapters I found chapter three, Villanueva's chapter to be the most interesting. I think I liked this chapter the most because I had the most previous knowledge on it. In past classes I have learned about Barthes and then in this class and past classes I have learned about Burke. Villanueva raises many interesting questions regarding myth and ideology. For instance he states "ideologies, myths, and rhetorics enjoy symbiotic relationships." I can see the relationship among the three that Villanueva is claiming. For instance last semester I read Barthes Mythologies which had a portion of it dedicated to the idea of plastic.Essentially the myth around plastic is it can be transformed into anything. However, it takes ideologies and and rhetoric to decide the meaning behind the plastic material. Such as barbie is made of plastic but it was because of ideologies and rhetoric that it was decided that Barbie is a girls toy. Its interesting to think about how much the three concept intertwine.

I also found it interesting that Villanueva related his argument to Catholicism. A part of this argument he brings up the discussion of genocide. Genocide in this case restricted the ability to claim a completely non-Spaniard self definition that the population was striving for. This part of the text reminded me back to our discussion regarding genocide in class. Genocide is often the cause of a power struggle or an issue regarding race.

Question: Did you like on chapter more than another?
How do you see mythologies, ideologies, and rhetoric intertwined within society?

Confucius's Virtue-Centered Rhetoric.

Once again it was a nice break to read a non-western article regarding rhetoric. On the second page I was reminded of our readings about Sophists when the article said, "To examine the Confucius's discussion of the relationship among language, virtue, and persuasion. This reminded me of the sophists as well as Plato and his whole beliefs regarding virtue. Actually a lot of stuff in the article had me thinking back to sophistry.

I also saw Aristotle's influence when it discussed the construction of pathos and the use of language in classical Chinese works. However the Confucius definition of rhetoric did stray away from Aristotle's definition of rhetoric. They differed because Aristotle's definition of rhetoric is all the available means of persuasion and Confucius put more emphasis on the idea of virtue. Another difference between Confucius rhetoric and past reading regarding rhetoric is Confucius suggests that rhetoric is participatory. I have always though of rhetoric as unavoidable. Primarily everything is rhetoric and I never saw it as an option to participate in it or not too. But according to Confucius rhetoric is a participatory discourse. Calling rhetoric discourse also varied from out past readings because we always saw them as separate components of language.

I became a little confused when the article discussed the term, Yan. I tried to think about this word in relation to how it would be used in the English language but for some reason I couldn't wrap my head around it. Does anyone have a simple way of defining it?

I also found it interesting that the article suggests that action plays a larger role in rhetoric than words. This reminded me of the saying "don't tell me you're going to do something just do it" or "actions speak louder than words" I guess I could agree with this because actions truly do carry more weight than simple words. Would you agree that actions carry more weight than words when it comes to rhetoric?

The Confucius attitudes towards speech once again brought me right back to the sophistry way of thinking. "Confucius stresses repeatedly that flattery, clever words, and pretentious amiable appearances are seldom associated with virtue." Hello this is such a sophistry thing to say. But as we know they would claim this and then all their speeches would be contradictory and use clever words and flattery.

Egyptian Rheotric

I found it very interesting to read an article that was not focused on Western Rhetoric. The part I found the most interesting was reading over the Egyptian cannons.

The first of their cannons is silence. I found this to be the most interesting of all the cannons because when I had previously thought of rhetoric I had not considered silence to be a component. According to Egyptian rhetoric though silence is both a moral posture and a rhetorical tactic. After reading it and the more I thought of if I guess I could see silence as being a rhetorical strategy. For instance, when someone gets arrested the cop always says "You have the right to remain silent" It is then up to the person being arrested if they choose to utilize silence to their benefit.

The second egyptian cannon is Kairos. This cannon recognizes that speech must occur however, it also recognizes how difficult speech can be because you can't always find the right words. This portion brought me back to the readings regarding the sophists since they always had so much emphasis on the power of giving a speech.

The third egyptian cannon was restraint meaning to hold back your emotions, covering up your anger, and regulating carefully. To me this cannon seemed like a cannon that would be emphasized in a country where women are oppressed. Telling someone to cover up emotions seemed like something that would be said by a man to a woman he wanted control over. I don't know what life was like in Egypt for women that was just the vibe I got.

After reading all the various different materials I found it interesting that I never saw anything regarding persuasion. It constantly talked about the power of speech but never talked about persuading people. This is the main difference I saw between western rhetoric and egyptian rhetoric.

What differences did you see between western and egyptian rhetoric?
Wat were your thoughts on the Egyptian cannons?

2012 CCCC Chair's Address

I really enjoyed reading Malea's address to the CCCC convention. She uses incorporates multiple stories of people that were at the convention. I thought this was a powerful rhetorical strategy because, it was a way to spark emotion within the audience. It also makes her stories more credible because the people in them are sitting in the audience so obviously they are true. Did you think the stories were necessary for her speech?

I saw many similarities between the piece we read by Dr. Villanueva and this piece. I think I mainly saw these similarities when it came to the topic of colonization and western rhetoric. I especially saw this when she discusses Walter Mignolo's book and how the book begins; "the belief that Western civilization and European modernity "was the [zero] point of arrival of human history and the model for the entire planet came to be taken for granted."This brought me back to our discussion of how Western rhetoric has taken over and its hard to find non western rhetoric material. She makes note of this too when she says that indigenous rhetoric has almost been eradicated.

I think it was also interesting that she incorporates the role a teacher plays in the classroom. This discussion brought me back to class when we discussed how teachers are essentially paid to change the minds of students. Malea supports this by discussing how her students learn about Western Rhetoric essentially so they can be mini versions of Malea. Do you that is possible for a teacher to teach without influencing the beliefs of students? Can learning be separated from emotions.

Victor Villanueva

I always highly enjoy reading Dr. Villanueva's stuff and this article was no exception. He always has a way of capturing and holding the readers attention. He is a breath of fresh air because everything he discusses is still relevant today. That is not to say the other reading are not still relevant they were just much harder to relate to then Villanueva's article.

He discusses heavily the issues of race and how it hinders certain racial groups within society. A lot of what Villanueva was discussing brought me back to the Aristotle reading. In a particular part of his essay he mentions that as Americans we tend to blame inequality of particular groups on the group itself. If there is a high amount of Chicano drop outs it is because they are lazy, not because the American education system was structured to favor particular race groups over others. This reminded me a lot of Aristotle's fallacies because often they argue that humans think in terms of because B happened after A then B was caused by A. Because Chicano drop outs increased it was because they were lazy.

Often this is our society's mentality of thinking that people fail because they don't try. However, what is it like for people born into a country where the foundation wasn't built for them? The opportunities aren't present because they are not part of the dominant race. Do you think it is possible to ever live in a society that is 100% equal for everyone? I personally do not think it is possible. The sad truth is these social constructions regarding race have become to engrained in our society.

He uses personal anecdotes throughout his entire article which I feel helped keep my attention throughout.Was there a particular anecdote you connected with over another? I think I particular like that Victor included the anecdote about the principal at his daughters school. I liked this anecdote because, it makes Victor a credible source. He has seen these issues first hand and is willing to share. As we have learned from Aristotle credible sources are important in the world of rhetoric.

Burke

As always Burke still highly confuses me but I tried to pay close attention to the ideas he was trying to convey. When he mentions the five terms; act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose this made some sense to me. To me primarily all situations can be analyzed using these five characteristics. It is especially easy to analyze TV shows and movies based on these characteristics. I know this because in several of my previous COM classes we have used Burke’s dramatic pentad to analyze messages in the media, movies, and TV shows. However, in this introduction piece reader can learn about these five terms and how they explain the motives of people.

He discusses how these terms can be used to simplify a much bigger picture. He believes that these terms could be easily understood by anyone and do not require much explanation. I think he makes a very good point, for instance explaining a movie would be much easier by using the pentad to break down the plot, instead of just rambling on about the movie. He also brings up that even with how simple these five components are there is still available room for confusion to occur. He discusses how vastly different people are and that therefore situations are interpreted vastly different. For instance everyone has a different interpretation for what family means to him or her. This is caused by the fact everyone had a different experience when it comes his or her personal family.

Burke also brings up this whole notion of the symbolic. As I have learned previously Burke had this notion that man is the symbol using, symbol making, and symbol-misusing animal. I think we will read more on it but Burke is heavily into the notion of the symbolic.  He brings up the idea of the symbolic in order to Segway into his ideas regarding transformation. When talking about transformation Burke discusses that it is ambiguity that leads to transformation. This makes sense because, from what I understand transformation is when an individual changes their mind because they were influenced or persuaded to do so. Essentially rhetoric influences the motives of an individual causing him or her to change their mind. However, if a statement or an idea had no room for ambiguity then the individual would never change their mind. However, because an argument or statement has multiple interpretations and is seen to be ambiguous then a persons mind can be changed too. Do you guys think it is easy to have a term that is not ambiguous? For instance is there a term you think everyone would interpret the same?

Although I do find Kenneth Burke to be super confusing I also find him to at least be less conceited than the previous rhetoricians we have read about. He seems to try to understand people more than Plato and the other rhetoricians we have read. Burke searched to understand humans and how they think. Whereas the previous philosopher are searching for an absolute truth and do not strive to understand people because, they already feel they know everything.  Do you guys agree? Or do you see previous concepts we have learned about in Burkes work too? 

Cicero & De Oratore

After reading the article regarding Cicero it seems to me Cicero was the bridge between Roman philosophy and Greek philosophy. He was the leader in teaching the Romans the teaching of Greek philosophy. Much like many of the other figures we have read about, Cicero was known for his oratory. However, Cicero thought his political career was the most important.

Although from what I read it didn't go into great depth aboutCicero being a rhetorician, I know he was. I know this because, to be a successful lawyer or politician it is essential to engage in rhetoric. Also, after he was exiled his letter to Atticus was a complete pathos appeal.

I also thought it was interesting how the article discusses the two different sides Cicero had. One side he was considered a humanist who influenced the renaissance and on the other side he was considered a republican who inspired the Founding Fathers. Although he was considered very influential from what I gathered in the article, he wasn't very well liked. In the article it said he went against the church and against Ceasar's reforms, it even at one point quoted a philosopher calling him a scoundrel.

Cicero's written dialogue De Orator seems much like a guide of how to be a good orator, I imagine it is written much like Aristotle's regarding rhetoric. I guess this reading is where we learn more about Cicero as a rhetorician. So I guess I was right when I mentioned above the Cicero was a rhetorician.

"The power of words in the hands of a man without scruples or principles would endanger the whole community." This line reminded me of past readings we have done where we have discussed does the responsibility lie with the listener or with the orator? If a man had no principles and chose to spoke does he really have the power to cripple a community? or should it be the communities responsibility to properly interpret the message?

Another question I have regarding Cicero's De Oratore is he mentions the perfect orator would have good rhetorical qualities and a man of great knowledge. He then goes on to list of characteristics of such knowledge such as, law, history, and ethical principles. Do you think he left any aspect of knowledge out? Such as I feel cultural knowledge should be included. Much like the other rhetoricians we have read about, Cicero puts a huge emphasis on the need to be educated to be a good orator. I am not sure I exactly agree with this because, I feel there are certain people we become infatuated with their speech based on their delivery not their information. I think it also makes a different depending on how educated your audience is.

Aristotle

The second half of the Aristotle reading was very interesting. It was especially interesting to me because, in my previous rhetoric class we did not read this far into Aristotle. He starts the reading out by describing the importance of oratory. He talked about this in the first half but, seems to go into more detail in the first few pages of the second half. I really like the line when he says; “it is not enough to know what we ought to say; we must also say it as we ought.” This is so true you can be super intelligent but if you don’t know how to deliver your intelligence it is irrelevant because, no one will listen to it.

Aristotle seems to focus more on the structure of language in the second half. He discusses the use of nouns and verbs and seems to put a lot of emphasis on how language is structured. He begins to break words down and talk about language on a more technical level.

Aristotle puts a huge emphasis on metaphors in this section of the reading. Aristotle states that there are four types of metaphors but, the proportional kind is the most important. He then goes on to include a metaphor by Pericles. “The vanishing from their country of the young men who had fallen in the war ‘as if the spring were taken out of the year.’ I personally think this is a beautiful metaphor it compares death to an absence of spring. Do you think this metaphor has a deeper meaning than its surface level meaning?

I think metaphor use is very common in society, we just don’t stop to think that what we are hearing or saying is a metaphor. For instance, a lot of great movies have a lot of great metaphor in them. I think one of the most famous ones we all know about it Forrest Gump. Forrest’s famous metaphor is; “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.” Metaphors are all around us if we just pay more attention.

Aristotle brings in this entire concept regarding poetry, something I am not previously familiar with. I get slightly confused with this concept because, I have a hard time connecting poetry to rhetoric. I have a hard time with this because, in my previous rhetoric class we stopped when we got to poetry and we never talked about it beyond that. How do you guys see poetry working as a rhetorical strategy?

Aristotle # 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtjKRwI96hk

This scene in Mean Girls reminded me of when Aristotle is talking about anger. Aristotle states; "The persons with whom we feel anger, the frame of mind in which we feel it, and the reasons why we feels it, have now all been set forth. Clearly the orator will have to speak so as to bring his hearers into a frame of mind that will dispose them to anger."

That is exactly what Janis is doing in this clip. She is framing her argument in regards to Regina George in order to appeal to Damien and Cady. Janis already hates Regina George so she is fired up to persuade Cady and Damien to hate her too. This also relates to the revenge part that Aristotle discusses. Once someone wrongs us, as Regina wronged Janis and Cady, we instantly are indignant and want to wrong them back. This clip lists the steps they will take in order to seek revenge on Regina George.

Aristotle

After reading pg.1-90 it baffles me that Aristotle was ever a student of Plato’s because, Aristotle 100% supports the idea of rhetoric. Although at some points in the reading you can see Plato’s teachings shinning through Aristotle’s writing. It just surprises me that Aristotle became so fond of the idea of rhetoric.

He also strays away from everything relying on knowledge. Although he states that a court of law should surround the idea of knowledge, he recognizes that often cases are based off the use of enthymemes. Essentially, enthymemes are emotions that are often used to persuade. Although often court cases are supposed to be based solely on fact, when examined some of the greatest cases were won by the use of enthymemes. Everything Aristotle discusses in pg. 1-90 can be used to analyze lawyer’s arguments. It is pretty hard for a lawyer to win a case without appealing at least slightly to the judge’s emotions. It’s funny to me that Aristotle argues that enthymemes shouldn’t be used but, then goes on to tell people how to use them and how to spot them.

Aristotle also breaks down forensic, political, and ceremonial oratory, which we have discussed previously in class. He also discusses the greater or lesser good. This question I feels is always raised in society, is a smaller bad action justified when compared to a bigger bad action? Or is a bad action big or small just considered bad? Throughout the 90 pages Aristotle constantly compares everything as the greater or lesser good.

I could see Plato’s teachings when in the latter half of the reading Aristotle talks about virtue. He says that virtue is praiseworthy and discusses the various different forms of virtue and their importance. After though he simplifies it and says; “ it is evident that things productive of virtue are noble.” What other ways did you guys see Plato's teachings in Aristotle's book of rhetoric? 

Aristotle also talks about the power of praise and how it is usually used to encourage a course of action. This reminded me of how often we give someone a compliment before asking a favor of them. Aristotle  ends this section of his book by discussing laws and how they function. He places a large emphasis on the importance of oaths and their use in the court of law. 

Phaedrus Part Two

While reading the second part of Phaedrus I made sure to pay close attention to anywhere I could see Plato's epistemology appearing. I was able to see his views on virtue vs. pleasure throughout. For instance on pg. 41 Phaedrus states " Not, I think, for those which have to be proceeded by pain if one is to enjoy pleasure at all." One can have pleasure but, they must go through pain to obtain it, one can not just simply have a pleasurable experience.

I also noticed Plato expressing his "supposed" dislike of rhetoric through Socrates. He once again claims that rhetoric does not exist. " a genuine science of speaking neither exists nor will come into existence in the future." Plato thinks the only way to obtain power in speech is through philosophy. I thought it was kind of funny when Socrates then goes on to compare the power of making one thing appear to resemble something else. Kind of like how they are claiming their philosophy to be the cause of their power of speech when really they are engaging in rhetoric.

In the middle part of the reading Socrates says "should we not mention Hippias." This comment seemed almost to be a little bashful towards Hippias. The only reason I mention it is because, I would have thought Plato would like Hippias becuase, if I remember right Hippias was all about recollection as well. Did you see point in the reading where Socrates seemed to be agreeing or clearly disagreeing with any of the sophists?

To be honest this whole latter half of the reading seemed to be confusing to me. They bring up all these Sophists we have previously discussed. I found myself often re-reading sentences because, I couldn't tell if they were agreeing with them or not. At some points I would think they were totally against rhetoric but, at other points of the reading I really wasn't sure. Do you think in the second half Plato is leaning towards rhetoric or against it still?

I guess my answer would be that I see how Plato begins to merge the two. For instance on pg. 55 Socrates reply to how to become an expert in rhetoric is, it is naturally in you to be a good orator but, you must obtain it through knowledge. This sentence made me think Plato is acknowledging rhetoric but, he is using his epistemology as the example for how you would obtain it.

Phaedrus

I found the Phaedrus reading to be a very interesting one. I was particularly intrigued by Lysias's  long rant regarding love. It seems almost as if Lysias doesn't like love, its as if he had a bad experience with love and is now bitter towards it. He makes it seem as if no one should trust people in love because, they are just blinded by love and will do or say anything. "Moreover, you should expect to become a better person if you listen to my arguments than if you listen to a lovers." He has a complete bias to people not in love. Making claims that a man in love is much more sick than a man not in love. While I can agree with some points because I do feel people often get blinded by love, I feel the speech goes to an extreme with judging lovers. Would you agree?

As I was reading I was also thinking back to our class discussion regarding Plato and how he often views things to be either black or white with no in between. I saw Plato using Socrates as a character who thought in a very black or white mindset. I especially caught a glimpse of this when Socrates stated; "But if Love is, as indeed he is a god, or something divine, he would not be anything bad."

After they both give their speeches the mood of the reading shifts and Socrates and Phaedrus begin to feel guilty of the stuff they said regarding love. They start discussing the consequences if a god or someone of importance had over heard them talking about it. This too is common in society, we are willing to express our opinions freely but as soon as we think someone may have heard that shouldn't have our story instantly changes.

After this Socrates and Phaedrus then begin to more heavily discuss the gods and the afterlife. This was another part where Plato's black and white thinking came into play. As they are discussing the soul as immortal, they are suggesting that a soul never changes. It is the same soul in the current life as it will be in the afterlife. Do you believe that the concept of a soul can be put into a definition? Much like their discussion on love, Socrates is trying to give complicated manners such as the soul a solid definition with defining principles. I find this simply too hard to do but, he appears to think he has done it. I also, found it interesting that the soul of the philosopher had a different afterlife process than the non-philosopher. How conceited can you be?

Gorgias

Gorgias and Socrates dialogue approached a lot of concepts that I had never really though about before. Such as, the differences between knowing and believing and the various different convictions it can possess. In this portion of the reading Gorgias and Socrates separate the idea of persuasion from teaching. This portion seemed a bit contradicting to me because, they are claiming that oratory, engenders belief without knowledge. Yet to me I feel there is knowledge in everything and while I do agree there is a difference in the two, I find it difficult to separate them as Gorgias and Socrates do.

When Gogias explains the control Oratory has on the human sphere he mentions, "Just because a man has acquired such skills in boxing or all- in wrestling or armed combat that he can beat anyone." Immediately after reading this I thought back to our class discussion on Kairos and how there is a time and place for everything. Whereas opportunity might present itself in the gym to punch someone, the same opportunity to punch someone is probably not going to happen in your household.

Another, component of Gorgias and Socrates argument I had a problem with was, the discussion on a man who has learned right from wrong will always be righteous. In regards to their conversation leading up to it about a man who studies medicine will become a doctor, it makes sense. However, when applied to the real world it doesn't make sense, if it did then our crime rate would be much lower.

Gorgias also makes the claim that you can't blame the teacher who taught the skills but rather the blame has to be put on the person who learned and used the skills. Do you guys agree that the teacher has no blame for actions involving their teachings?

Political power and the power orators possess gets discussed heavily in the reading as well. When it comes to the topic of power, it seems as though Socrates and Polus get very sassy and defensive on their positions. Socrates seems to think orators are pandering. Therefore, essentially he is calling himself a panderer, although he would never have admitted that. Is Socrates being a hypocrite during is debate with Polus regarding the power or orators?

The reading also discusses heavily this notion everyone posses regarding, the lesser and greater evil of things. Is it ok to steal a fish to feed your family? vs is sealing ok? Its this constant debate in society of morality vs. ethics. A particular part in the reading this idea was brought up was, Socrates and Polus debate about, one of two shameful things is the more shameful.

This week's reading was filled with many interesting components but, the above is what stood out to me most!

The Sophists

After completing the reading about the Sophists, I now feel I have a much better understanding about their lifestyle. On their most basic level, it seems as if the Sophists are individuals who pushed social boundaries. Not only did they push social boundaries but, they also seemed to have a much higher intellectual level/desire than most individuals of the time period. Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, and Thrasymachus, were among some of the most prominent Sophists of the time. They were all well known orators and teachers of rhetoric.

After reading about the above Sophists, it brought me back to our conversation in class about, ethos, pathos, and logos. It seemed as if many of these men relied on ethos as a means of supporting their argument. Through out the reading their skills of oratory were frequently discussed. "Both amazed and instructed by his extraordinary, dazzling oratory, particularly his verbal innovations, they received him enthusiastically." After reading this part and some other parts, it almost seemed as if these men manipulated/ took advantage of their audience. They knew their audience wasn't educated and took this as an opportunity to influence the audience. They were able to talk the talk and present it in a manner that made it seem like it was impossible not to believe. But, I guess that is what rhetoric is all about and there is no doubt these men knew rhetoric.

Another part that stood out to me was, "They were subversive intellectuals and professors: dangerous people in their community."It can be scary to think of how powerful knowledge is and what it is capable of. We have all heard of an event in time where knowledge led to tragedy. Homemade bombs take knowledge to make and that knowledge leads to destruction. Knowledge should not be feared but the potential of how someone could use such knowledge should be feared.


A component of the reading that related back to cultural practices of today was; "Laws and customs are derived from social agreement, not from human nature." This relates to the struggle some people have today with, morality vs. ethics. As the reading is suggesting laws much like today are based on social norms. However, individuals must articulate where their personal ethics fall in line with such social norms.

The whole pushing social norms and going against the grain is still relevant today as well, probably more than ever. Our society puts such an emphasis on fitting in with your peers. We view people who go against the grain as outcasts. Back in the day they just had a different name for it, Sophists.

My questions to the class would be:

Did anyone have a different modern interpretation of the poem on pg. 29? Or do you thing the one provided is adequate?

Do you agree with the ideologies of one Sophist more than another?