Because finding the right school to pursue a master’s or doctoral degree can be a real challenge, these links embedded here draw together resources for exploring graduate programs in the three main English concentrations.
I almost lost this text while scrolling. Have you considered adding more text here to further separate the images?
school
The Fulton County Schools and TeachGeorgia images are placed well
service
This image below is slightly overwhelming. Maybe it's because it's so large, maybe the color... I'm not entirely sure, but this image really disrupted my reading.
to
fix text break here
We become so focused on the end product, but this graphic illustrates the multiple steps that must be taken to get there. It is a procedure.
Maybe academic discourse needs to shift back to the process. We need to get back to the canons and understand how they can translate to digital.
Bogost discusses how most news articles discussing the 2007 merit-based green card proposal in the U.S. Congress cut and pasted examples of how the system would function from press releases.
I find this a little funny because the book I'm reading on PR devotes a lot of time to press releases. When I heard him mention this, I was shocked that news outlets were using PR associates as journalists... Back to the simplicity and instant gratification of our culture.
I am so fascinated with his observations of our society... We have become simple. We look to the internet, and we crave instant gratification, but I had not connected this fast-pace to simplicity. Procedural rhetoric aims to bring the discussion back to the process. During the discussion period, Bogost briefly mentions developing literacy, specifically computational literacy, and he states that we have to "short-circuit" our simplicity. This is such a strong statement, because we have become so used to simplicity and instant reward, but procedural rhetoric and digital literacy forces us to return to the process of rhetoric.
(through the Plato game Tenure)
I like this idea of working through conflicts. We use rhetoric daily to work through conflicts, but we never think of rhetoric as a procedure. We focus on the audience, the appeals, the final product... But we lose the process. This takes me back to the canons. We talk about how the canons are so relevant today, and I think procedural rhetoric proves that. Rhetoric is a process, and delivery is usually the last canon covered. Why? Because rhetoric is a process.
He says that procedural rhetoric is not limited to computers; where else can we apply procedural rhetoric? This idea of procedurality needs to be assessed in our modern classroom, especially since the younger generation is growing up immersed in technology.
The fact that he's putting rhetoric in this procedural context is utterly fascinating. Even in my previous readings on digital rhetoric, I felt drawn to the final product, but I was not considering rhetoric as a procedure through the digital space. It seems like we need to start thinking of rhetoric as a system instead of a product.
Within assemblage theory, agency is dependent on the kinds of relationships that are formed between different elements.
I like the idea of agency related to relationships. People act differently in different roles, and roles change with time.
In a multiplatform environment participation and agency can happen in more subtle ubiquitous ways; it happens through practices like using the Foxtel Go that transforms computers, tablets and phones into television sets.
Agency is usually thought of as something obvious and unmistakable, so rarely do people using netflix think of themselves as agents.
it is also becoming increasingly multiplatform by spreading its content across different devices and platforms that encourage viewer participation.
Yes! Apps like WatchABC and what not. It's interesting because some people use these apps as backup when they miss the original air time of a show, but because they missed it, they have to interact with the provider.
For example, a viewer who personalises their news to receive only business news or entertainment news misses out on hard news and is not exposed to a mixed diet of news sub-genres
Or conservative vs. liberal news, etc.
Furthermore, Bennett and Strange point out that customisation and personalisation technologies that enable viewers to select programmes according to personal taste
It's human nature to go to what is similar to us and our views. So I can see how this would be a problem.
As a stable structure, broadcast television may not offer the personalisation and customisation features that digital television does, however it possesses some very important functions. By addressing a mass audience, it facilitates a sense of nationhood and enables the spread of important information
I agree with Karisa. This seems like a stretch, like she was going for something purely emotional and went straight to nationhood. Important info can easily be spread through other outlets, I mean heck, I get most of my news from Twitter. Maybe people are afraid of this decentralization of television.
viewers to become schedulers
viewers as schedulers... interesting concept, but also totally understandable, i.e. Netflix
With their simple content and amateur production standards, LetsPlay channels have very rudimentary aesthetics that challenge the broadcast/network model.
But could they be "amateur" to appeal to children? Just a thought.
Even the name given to these channels ‘LetsPlay’
Deliberate choice!
Their hybrid nature puts into question television’s ontological status and the idea that it is a stable medium. While I agree with Uricchio who argues that historically television demonstrates a propensity for change and that different models of television have always existed, I would also suggest that examples like LetsPlay channels signal that digital technology has considerably increased the number of different forms of television and the rate of change.
I agree with this argument, but I can't help but think back to Clemens and Nash. Examples like LetsPlay also blue the lines between media, bringing us back to their idea of a digital ontology and a single medium.
Go behaves as an agent that enables new viewing practices by forming connections between different parts of the assemblage including viewers, industry, texts and related technology.
Go is a new agent here. Much like the internet, it allows multiple agents to convene to form a new, single agent
effect logic toward a multiple determination.
Are we back to the heterogenous determinants?
This signals a shift in how television is viewed; live television can now be viewed without the need for a television set.
I'm wondering if the tv set will eventually be obsolete
It enables computers, tablets and phones to do what just a few years ago only the television set could do
distributing agency
One of the most interesting aspects of Go is that it incorporates a number of functions that were previously distributed amongst different technological devices such as the television set, the remote control, the set top box, and the Personal Digital
"Go" is an assemblage of agency
television has always been a hybrid medium
I'm confused as to how it was ever thought of a non-hybrid medium
If we understand multiplatform television as an assemblage that is constantly forming new connections between viewers, texts, technologies, polices and practices, we can imagine a virtual realm full of possible outcomes. However, it is difficult to predict which will be actualised and which will remain in the realm of the virtual. This sense of contingency and chance means that social and cultural television formations are open to the new and unthought rather than limited to fixed relations.
We circle back to the hyperreal and the real... Digital space embodies rhetoric but does it also confuse it? This also relates to the idea of agency. We mentioned the problem with cyberbullying and how people feel protected behind a screen; is it because the digital space shares some agency with them? Are they working on the contingency that no one finds their actual identity?
exploring emergent properties.
Rhetoric emerging through various agents?
binaries and hierarchies such as production/consumption, producer/audience, industry/consumer and even technologies/text.
The digital blurs these binary divisions. Producers are also audiences, consumers can produce their own content and are not limited to one producer, viewers can also produce content...
Tamsin Loraine uses the example of a tree that might be comprised of tendencies toward bending and falling
This is an interesting example, and it supports the idea of distributed agency
These processes also affect how agency operates within an assemblage. Firstly, agency cannot be attributed to any one component or actant, human or non-human but emerges from the association of different parts. It is intrinsically tied to the kinds of connections that make
I don't know how I feel about this... Isn't the root of web content developed by a human?
Processes of territorialisation can over-code an assemblage by giving its parts fixed roles and meanings and by producing a closed unified structure with a central point of power and signification
This is an interesting thought... Why do we try to regulate things like this? Is this happening with the web and its content? We appreciate that so many people can post online, but we also try so hard to regulate it...
Unlike fixed structures that always act in the same way and produce the same outcomes, assemblages introduce new possibilities.
We could benefit from thinking of rhetoric as an assemblage; we have five modes to work with and countless outlets for composition. I don't think this proves that digital rhetoric is more pervasive, though... I'm honestly quite torn on this topic.
with binary relations
Oh, the binary.
As old connections disappear and new ones form, it changes quantitatively, in terms of the number of connections it has:
Also, the digital allows us more connection than pen and paper
Although this mode of theorizing provides a basis for prediction and thus for intervention and rational governance, it falls short in accounting for change
Yes, yes it does. I can think of quite a few people who are uncomfortable with our progress into digital rhetoric... The digital sphere, though, allows different voices to speak, much like the new TV "system" allows more people to access content.
It also allows us to consider how agency is reshuffled, as new connections are formed between new kinds of devices, texts, practices and applications.
Agency is slowly being transferred to the user. We are no longer passively watching our scheduled programming.
As Goggin notes assemblage theory ‘questions the constitution, production, and reproduction of the social, pointing to how particular objects suggest different conceptions, ordering and politics
I prefer this definition; it hints at the transformation from viewer to user and how multimodality influences our concepts of content.
Keilbach and Stauff have a similar issue with the framing of television as a stable medium.
How can one consider anything digital as stable?
For Joke Hermes television and television viewing is so vastly different than it once was that ‘we are in need of evaluating what television is about and, perhaps also, of updating our theoretical frame-work to understand the medium’
It's so interesting that these advances are forcing us to reevaluate what we once thought about media and content. We are literally developing a new rhetorical situation. I'm not sure if Plato would be proud, considering that most of us cannot go speak with authors and directors, but he might see it as a step forward.
The emergence of digital, multiplatform television also puts into question many of the central concepts and theories for understanding television and television culture, such as: appointment viewing, mass audiences, liveness and broadcast-flow
Providers and content developers can now target more specific audiences.
In the midst of this change at least three new and distinct functions stand out: pay per view, search and retrieve, and upload and share.
We already have a new rhetorical situation here: viewers are no longer simply viewers. They are users and they interact with their television
at a time of their choosing.
Giving agency to the consumer
When modulating some digital data into a display state and experiencing it as an image (say, in order to show a picture of your child to a friend on your phone),
If this is the way things are, how do we think of ourselves? Are we display states?
Later, we will see how this could help us also understand immanently digital entities and their relationship to the world.
Think about how we consider digital entities. We consider them entities, but do they have agency? Are they rhetors, or are they just mediums?
it is rather to be given a new access to being itself, and one which must thereafter guide our thinking of natural processes more generally.
Do we exist in the digital?
Unlike broadcast television, multiplatform television can be understood as a rhizomatic assemblage as it contains no centre of significance and cannot be unified into a whole. Multiplatform television consists of a number of different media sites, services and devices where viewers can access the programmes of their choice at any time.
Is this the direction that rhetoric is going in?
The concept of reciprocal determination is important for challenging the centrality of broadcast television and the idea of television and television culture as something with a fixed and stable structure based on fixed roles, binaries and hierarchies such as production/consumption, producer/audience, industry/consumer and even technologies/text.
I think this concept can very well be applied to rhetoric, i.e. writing/speaking
This approach means that the actual is always informed and influenced by the virtual and that, while the virtual may have an infinite number of possibilities, only some are actualised. It also implies that ‘the determination of every actual being by the virtual past in its entirety remains contingent for Deleuze:
Going back to agency and the confusing divide between digital and real. We don't consider the digital to be real, but what happens in the digital realm is produced by humans
constantly being reconfigured according to the introduction of new elements and components. This essay turns to assemblage theory because it specifically focuses on open and dynamic systems.
Much like rhetoric is constantly evolving
challenges a linear determination based on a cause and effect logic,
It's interesting that this way of thinking is present in TV and in writing. We have finally started to move away from a linear writing process, and it seems as though the same thought process is present in media production.
‘[T]hey have helped to mask some of the medium’s fundamental transformations, and they have continued to shape key assumptions about television’s interactions with its audiences,
I agree with this; my parents and grandparents have yet to embrace the interactivity of television. My grandparents have a basic cable subscription and they refuse to upgrade because the newer technology threatens to disrupt what they know about television.
These changes have transformed television from a single platform medium into an interactive multiplatform medium that encourages viewer (if this term is still appropriate) participation
perhaps "viewer" needs to be changed to "user"
In this mediating sense, we can understand modulation as becoming, although for Simondon mediation never refers to a third entity acting between two structures,
Is rhetoric literally embodied through the digital? I like that he doesn't refers to a third party; the idea of the interactive communication is fascinating. Perhaps writing in collaboration with machines creates a secondary audience for us.
In this mode, the word takes on a definite sense of shaping, even of sculpting, since the shape of the carrier wave is modified by the signal for transmission,
I like this idea of shaping and sculpting. It seems to personify machines.
It has come to denote a similar performative action in speech.
So, are machines performers? Since they translate what we write and kind of interpret what we compose?
Because digitisation places the emphasis on a plurality of modulations of the same material, just as Spinoza conceives of a single substance expressed in an infinity of modes, these modulations are no longer media in any traditional sense.
How does this transformation affect how we write or compose for audiences? Is the digital sphere a stepping stone to including a more universal audience?
“with numbers, everything goes […] a digital base will erase the very concept of medium”
Maybe I'm having a hard time grasping this because I've literally been trained to love the written word, but even a digital base has to be modulated, doesn't it? Even though we write for machines, I think we ultimately consider a human audience. Machines translate, but humans read.
a video and a stock market price, until that data is once again modulated into a display register
How do we begin to write for this new audience?
that will ‘make sense’ of the data in the context of a spreadsheet
Is this protocol an audience?
As stated above, the fact that there still seem to be media in the world, apparently differentiating themselves from each other, is entirely due to this protocol-driven modulation process to and from display states.
How do we classify what sorts our data? Do they technically mediate information for an audience?
Since the very concept of media by definition presumes that there are media, plural (for example, differentiated media), and since the digital converges all media into a single state (that is to say digital data), then by definition the concept of media simply disappears. In other words, data is the Great Leveler.
I had never thought of this. What would Plato think of this? The digital allows us to record thoughts and words for a very large audience, but can our work adapt to future audiences?
must first be digitised to data, then modulated between storage and display in an endless protocol-based negotiation that both severs any link to the data’s semantic source and creates an ever-growing excess of data weirdly related to, but ontologically distinct from, its originating data source.
I'm having flashbacks to Hunter's article
This ontology will be at once historicist, inhuman, and anti-descriptivist.
I'm interested to see how they develop this. I'm having a hard time relating to technology in the way that the writers are.
return to a full-blown metaphysics of ‘being,’ outside of any subjective or human ‘correlation.’
Are machines "beings?"
integrally mediated through the human
Can we argue that machines are rhetors if they are created and mediated by humans?
whatever happens might also not have happened; yet what happens also happens as a result of human intentions and actions; finally
Is this the "hyper real?" What happens in games and simulations isn't real, but what happened was caused by a human... Ahh, the confusion.
How does this change the way we think about audience awareness? Will multimodality become the norm to create texts that can be used by multiple audiences?
udienceis faculty in Rhetoric and Composition at Georgia State University, but also admissions committees for graduate programs and professionals involved in hiring and job searches.
Is the focus on you or on your field? Grad student or immediate career path?
what ways do you think you havegrown the most as an author and producer of texts? How have your views, attitudes, and understanding of your writing process,revision, and editin
Display content knowledge here. This is academic.
What is your current definition of “rhetoric”? Which theories, figures, readings, assignments, and/or courses have most contributed to your understanding of rhetoric and its purpose in the world?oProvide your own definition of “critical thinking,”and discuss specific
Tell a story that answers these questions. What have you learned? How have you learned it? Make this relate to your job field.
Any campaign about us must be built on bedrock of real actions and social change involving business, community and governments.”
What exactly are these "real actions"? Young talked about changing the way we view disabled people, but has anyone talked about the necessary steps to take in order to change anything? I'm also wondering how government action could change how individuals view disabled people. Don't we need to change the way we think first?
TEDx is encouraging individuals to go talk to disabled people and ask them questions
Even after her talk, TEDx takes agency away from disabled people.
The stigma disables.
It would be interesting to approach disability from this model. We work so hard to make progress in gender and racial equality, but we continue to disable other human beings. Why do we other ourselves from them?
In all cases, disabled humans get treated as props.
They are literally dehumanized. Are they disembodied by society because they have different bodies?
we frequently struggle with how to build friendship networks outside of other kids who share our children’s conditions
is this "othering?"
The message should be that people with disabilities can set and achieve goals, not that thin equals beautiful.
Does this speak to the objectification of the female body? Why couldn't she just achieve her goal and end it there? Why does this now have to be a story of fat shaming? Would the situation be different if she were a man?
“The woman is not helpless. She specifically requested assistance with eating,” Ladau writes. “She advocated for what she needed. The employee’s assistance was simply a kind acknowledgment of her request. [The comments] regarding the man are all to the effect of “bless his heart,” “what a hero,” “such a saint.”
Part of me would like to believe that eventually, our society will move away from binaries. I think a problem that we face, though, is that we have not yet realized the true power in collaborative work. One single person cannot speak for all groups of humans, but a group of people with different perspectives can create a more inclusive environment. I think we are just now starting to experience this in rhetoric; multimodal literacy is finally making its way into the academic world, and we are beginning to create more inclusive documents that engage all modes of composition.
Do people with disabilities have the right to expect privacy?
The fact that this is something that has to be questioned signals a problem. They are PEOPLE, regardless of their abilities
Has he seen her since the fourth grade? Do they hang out together? Does he pity her?
The word "pity" here is interesting. Even though this promise clearly involved two consenting individuals, the media only focuses on the able-bodied participant. Lapkowicz is disregarded, it seems, and she is excluded from the story. She is objectified and becomes the "damsel in distress," so to speak.
exploring the various ways that disabled people were used to make other folks think mostly of themselves.
I've seen this in other instances as well. Could we argue that people objectify poverty this way? What about minorities?
“I doubt there’s a computer simulation on the horizon capable of accurately representing all the activity in a single cubic centimeter of soil or the entire sensory experience of clipping one toenail, much less an entire social world of thousands of human users” (Rushkoff 2013, 64).
I think there is something to be said about the human experience here: how are we different in the digital space than we are in face-to-face interactions? As Monica mentioned, attaching a face to a troll online kind of solidifies the actual human experience of bullying and other negative comments. In the digital sphere, users are protected by a screen; even if they are on social media with a profile picture and a bio, other users don't experience their physical body. There is something very potent about the human experience, arguably so potent that it cannot be replicated in a digital space. It begs the question of how embodied a digital space really is: is it more of an individual or personal embodiment? As Rushkoff writes, there may not be any kind of software or program that can truly represent the human experience. We may feel strongly about our online personas, but regardless of how accurately (or inaccurately) reflect our actual beings, other internet "bodies" can never experience us as feeling human beings.
When we transform our pedagogical practices in the face-to-face classroom to value the deep learning that comes with human interaction and embodiment—particularly when those bodies vary in identity markers of class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability—our students gain ethical knowledge that values human difference.
Am I the only one desperately wanting to take one of Hunter's English courses?
multiple textures of human experience,
Multiple textures- interesting (or expected?) that a CODA uses something that relates to sense of touch to describe the human experience
But we can choose to live in between the 1s and 0s—we can choose to live a life that is not programmed.
Living beyond the digital world--we return to the idea of the hyper-real. Are we distorting the human experience?
One of the ways we explore this complexity of human experience is through short readings in modernist literature, including an excerpt from the beginning of Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway (1925).
How would Plato feel about this use of literature?
Such practices can be extended beyond deaf students to ESL students, as Babcock suggests, but also to neurodiverse, differently abled, and first generation students.
Standard written English: should it be the standard?
Instead of focusing on what is “right,” or what makes sense in English, I suggest focusing on the physical concept she is expressing in ASL and offer a variety of ways to communicate that highly visual concept in written English.
Is the structure of language restrictive? How do we learn to accurately portray something so physical by simply writing it out?
but she contorts her body to show the burden of weight, while also twisting her mouth to indicate her doubt about whether or not possessing two coffee mugs is a good idea.
Rhetoric and its connection to body language
distorts the lived experience
Is this similar to how the digital realm distorts our sense of reality?
prewriting on their consumer identity
Self-awareness and its importance to the use of rhetoric: being aware of their consumer identity would allow students to better engage with the persuasive techniques of advertisements.
eading body language
How do we read body language differently than written language?
her face squished, her arm limp—not in a passion, but in de-attachment. And then we become the sailor: the man, with his left arm locking the woman into his embrace, locking her head into a forceful kiss. The romance dissipates
I never considered this relationship
Likewise, the classroom is no longer a single place, but rather an interface that is shaped by the bodies of the students in that classroom.
How do you think this changes in larger classes? Would this be possible in a lecture hall?
I cannot be replaced by a screen.
Value of face-to-face over online courses?
However, I have invited the stares and have made them a part of the pedagogical practice.
This "stare" she talks about: earlier, she mentioned a blank stare that modern students had learned to project. By transforming her classroom and using the physical space, she changes the nature of the student stare
Instead, all of their eyes are on me.
Simply by using the classroom space, she changes the dynamic between teacher and student.
we are ignoring the embodied interface of the classroom and the multisensory affordances of shared space.
Spatial and visual modes of communication?
his hearing loss was rendered less visible when he narrated a story with everyday facial expressions, gestures, and body movements. At the same time, his performance made visible the storytelling capabilities of the human body, and it demanded that the children decode his stories through careful watching.
These methods could be used in the classroom: force students to "decode" instructor stories instead of staring blankly at a powerpoint
Nonverbal communication is the story we tell with our bodies.
I like that she calls it a story
according to hearing standards,
Do we think of hearing standards as the norm?
viewing sign language as an extension or expression of poetry
Sign language is often viewed as an extension of language in general, rather than being viewed as a language in itself
a gulf between the words on the page and the ideas they symbolize.
Words are arbitrary symbols for human experiences
performance of hearing culture
"performance of hearing culture:" affirms that there are other cultures that are perceived as "normal" within their own respective groups
Yet, my formal education in English studies had de-emphasized the body as a vehicle for communication, locating knowledge primarily in oral and aural articulations.
This is prevalent in high school classrooms
being
Interesting that it's "being" and not "communicating"
normalize deaf persons as hearing persons
Our society is good at trying to normalize people
exchange their existing human capabilities for assistive devices and de-contextualized simulations.
We discussed this in class: the hyper-real?
able-bodied students have learned throughout their formal education to project a perfect blank stare.
This is an interesting (but true, I think) obvservation
Access to student feedback, however, is not the same as actual student feedback.
Student feedback is available, but students are distracted and not actually providing the feedback
expressive space of an embodied pedagogical practice.
Going beyond the lecture and power points
which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?
Arguing that words cannot recognize audiences or truly teach content
ceteris paribus
latin phrase meaning "all else being equal"
He who is the victim of his passions and the slave of pleasure
strong language
Are philosophers one step below gods...?
No, that is not likely-in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.
I don't know how I feel about this.
Do people still think like this? Blindly following public figures because of who they are instead of looking for the truth?
aid not to memory, but to reminiscence,
I remember hearing once that the digital age has made us worse at remembering things because we know we can just look them up on our phones or computers... Is this similar?
but only about conviction
pathos?
he who would be an orator has to learn the differences of human souls-they are so many and of such a nature, and from them come the differences between man and man.
building ethos with your audience
partly given by nature, but may also be assisted by art.
techne?
A very great power in public meetings
Once again, limiting rhetoric to public events
in order to remind the hearers of them
conclusion and repetition
I should say rather that I have heard the art confined to speaking and writing in lawsuits, and to speaking in public assemblies-not extended farther.
this view is still widely held today by those who haven't studied rhetoric
art of enchanting the mind by arguments;
Rhetoric as a techne, an art
And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment;
Rhetoric is often thought of as manipulative--something politicians use to get votes, etc.
One of the rules of rhetoric: Know as much as you can about your subject before speaking on it. Helps you connect with your audience
which almost always have previous pain as a condition of them
there is no pleasure without pain
For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity.
Interesting statement about politics...
But why did you make your second oration so much finer than the first?
Perhaps because he was speaking the truth (or at least what he believed to be true)... Is rhetoric more powerful when it is supported with truth?
blood-red complexion
not just red, blood-red
white
the color white is typically associated with purity, ex. white wedding dresses
I have no hope of practising my art upon you
Interesting that he calls it an art here, like he is proud of his "memorization." But, in his last dialogue, he admits to only having a "general notion."
For, as I was saying, I want to know not about this, but about myself
It is also often argued that the study of rhetoric leads to increased self-awareness...
For they praise your words and actions in a wrong way; partly, because they are afraid of offending you, and also, their judgment is weakened by passion.
Love literally blinds us.
Do we still think this way today?
Yet surely you ought not to be granting favours to those who besiege you with prayer, but to those who are best able to reward you;
He has no interest in one-sided friendships.
repetition
How do we use repetition in rhetoric?
"tu quoque"
logical appeal to hypocrisy
This is an interesting analogy
dithyrambics.
1. a Greek choral song or chant of vehement or wild character and of usually irregular form, originally in honor of Dionysus or Bacchus. 2. any poem or other composition having similar characteristics, as an impassioned or exalted theme or irregular form. 3. any wildly enthusiastic speech or writing.
servant.
beloved = servant?
And not only while his love continues is he mischievous and unpleasant, but when his love ceases he becomes a perfidious enemy of him on whom he showered his oaths and prayers and promises, and yet could hardly prevail upon him to tolerate the tedium of his company even from motives of interest.
Ahh, we know this too well
His analogies are just... They're something.
For if love be, as he surely is, a divinity, he cannot be evil.
His own use of rhetoric allowed him to reflect on his words
which may be compared to the irritation and uneasiness in the gums at the time of cutting teeth,-
Interesting that earlier, he defines the difference between mortal and immortal. Here, he compares an immortal experience to a moral one
The followers of Zeus
He consistently groups philosophers with Zeus
only the soul of a philosopher, guileless and true, or the soul of a lover, who is not devoid of philosophy
identifying the value of philosophy?
1200 and 1500 words.
About 5-7 pages of substantive work.
Provide your own definition of “critical thinking,”
How have you grown? What coursework has helped you?
Content
Your critical reflective essay is NOT the story of the pieces in your portfolio. This info goes in your introductions.
25
Jan. 26, not 25
conversation with one another
How do they conflict with one another? How are they similar? Compare/contrast
summarize both readings
No more than a paragraph for each piece.
Everything in red is something that is DUE for the week. Major subjects are under "What are we doing in class?" Looking ahead: What are we doing next week?
stripped off her clothes, then hit a woman and threw several platters of food
But why?
No bond has been posted in her case.
Translation: her family is embarrassed.
As soon as I saw this headline, I thought "This must have been somewhere in Georgia."