every life-form is familiar, since weare related to it.
Interesting to consider that we are all connected in this way while also mentioning that we know very little about deep sea. It is a nice comparison and drawback of the two ideas. While offering the reader a separate and important lesson of relation and environment, the author also hints that even if we don't know much about these "strange creatures," it doesn't mean they aren't important.
We are the medium
restated and called back to throughout the text.
also references the repeated theme that science / medicine / covid cannot be seperated from all other factors of the human experience.
not only are we the medium for the pandemic, we are inseperable from it.
Repeated attacks on our native tongue diminish our sense of self.
Again references the idea of language and identity, suggesting that one's language influences one's perception of who they are as individuals.
But a distinct difference between black rhetoric and what we might call white rhetoric is the typical relationship between speaker and audience.
For Make a Difference Day my sophomore year, part of our service brought us to a primarily African American church, I am not sure what denomination. I was struck by the communal aspect of rhetoric in the church. The audience was involved and invested in the rhetoric of the speaker and offered an openly supportive environment. Now that I am thinking back on this, the support and involvement of the audience completely changed my experience of the speaker's rhetoric and stressed the importance of community. As mentioned earlier, language and culture cannot be separated, and the rhetoric of African Americans reflects the value placed upon community and depending upon others as a result of the discrimination and challenges they have faced in a predominantly white culture.
This theorem alleges that meanings, from the very beginning, have a primordial generality and abstractness;
A more direct definition of "meaning," rather than the loosely applied, ambiguous idea that people apply to the word as referenced on page 1276.
No first-hand expe-rience of war or seafaring or politics or business was possible for them.
There seems to be a correlation between Woolf's use of "experience" in Woman and Fiction and Professions of Women; in both instances, she states that it is impossible, or at the very least, extremely difficult, for women to gain experience professional experience due to the patriarchal structure of society and the limitations this structure placed on a woman in all aspects of her life.
There are thirty or forty passages in favor of woman's public work for Christ, and only two against it, and these not really so when rightly understood.
Would these two passages against "woman's public work for Christ" possibly be against it if read literally? Her point is that reading the bible literally is the incorrect way to read the bible, and it sounds like she is inferring this here. Willard just said a few passages before this that if men are to read the passage literally, then they: "should remember that this literalness of rendering makes it his personal duty, day by day, actually to 'eat his bread in the sweat of his face.' The argument is a two-edged sword, and cuts both ways" (1130).
We need women commentators lo bring out the women's side of the book; we need the stereoscopic view of truth in general, which can only be had when woman's eye and man's together shall discern the perspec-tive of the Bible's full-orbed revelation.
Willard is saying that women are necessary to discover truth, and that a reason that truth has not been realized so far is because women have been excluded from interpreting the bible in their own way and instead are told what is said in the bible by men. Reflects her earlier statement, which states that men generally interpret the bible in their self-interest and to ensure they maintain power and minimize competition (1124).
Once upon a time, in some out of the way comer of that universe which is dispersed into number-less twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing.
Nietzsche is a tremendous writer for a number of reasons, but his willingness to fully embrace rhetorical flourish in his works makes him a one-of-a-kind voice. Beyond simple style, though, this also puts his philosophy concerning meaning into action; this "creative use of language to make an effective social arrangement" that is identified in the introduction is happening right here.
f such women as are here described have t-.... once existed, be no longer astonished then, my s brethren and friends, that God at this eventful pe-5~ riod should raise up your own females to strive, ~' by their example both in public and private, to · assist those who arc endeavoring stop the strong current of prejudice that flows so profusely against us at present. No longer ridicule their ef-forts, it will be counted for sin. For God makes use of feeble means sometimes, to bring about his most exalted purposes.
Here, Stewart is arguing that in many past respected societies (Greek, Roman, Jewish), women were well-respected in a religious sense. As a reference to her earlier claim, that she was visited by the Holy Spirit and therefore had the temerity and the right to speak publicly on religious grounds. I do find it interesting that she said: "For God makes use of feeble means sometimes, to bring about his most exalted purposes." Her use of the word "feeble" is interesting, because it seems like she is ascribing to the expected gender roles/personalities, in that women are the "softer sex," and not perceived as strong or powerful.