Class Video - 'Arrangement'

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qu34l0yhdkx4cad/FaussetArrangementVideoReduced.pptx

Chemistry meets Socrates. A homework problem for the ages.

Well, I couldn't wait to share this with my 5364 colleagues. In perusing the end-of-chapter problems for the General Chemistry textbook used in my lecture course, I came across the following acid-base problem:

The actual chemistry problem (calculate the pH of a 0.500 M solution of coniine) takes only a few lines, but the description of a 'real-world' scenario of this substance occupies three paragraphs and includes a picture! Yes, the death of Socrates is in my General Chemistry textbook. I was sure to include snippets of other end-of-chapter problems so that you could see that no other warranted the same amount of space on the page. I think it exemplifies my blog title in many ways. Aristotle (Rhetoric) and Lavoisier (Chemistry).

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

p.s.-yes, of course we did this problem in class along with the corresponding narrative:)

On Love, Truth and Falsehood......

In Phaedrus, love is power. So powerful, in fact, that it dictates future relationships based on past relationships. It clouds judgment and decision-making. Perhaps to the point that the lover cannot be trusted. Essentially, nonlovers have control of their feelings, lovers do not. I think this is used as an example by Plato because love is such a strong emotion. The discourse by Lysias to support these claims references examples that Socrates does not refute, but rather calls repetitive. "It seemed to me, Phaedrus, unless you disagree, that he [Lysias] said the same thing two or three times, as if he did not find it easy to say many things about one subject, or perhaps he did not care about such a detail; and he appeared to be in youthful fashion to be exhibiting his ability to say the same thing in two different ways and in both ways excellently." (p. 143). Phaedrus, on the other hand, believes that Lysias has not omitted any points. Love may be the focus of the discourse, because discussions about love can be highly rhetorical and Phaedrus seems just as excited about the discourse as he does about the subject.

Regarding true and false rhetoric, I was immediately reminded of the passage on page 52 of The Rhetorical Tradition. "....because whenever a statement is made, if the event has taken place in the way indicated by the statement, the statement is true; but if the event has not taken place in the way indicated, the same statement is false". What? Isn't that obvious? I think there was so much free time back then, that words were sometimes used just to entertain. I have to think that in order to understand what sounds like nonsense. But, I can also appreciate the fact that these philosophers and rhetoricians were trying to understand and create new knowledge. It's easy for me to be critical with an 'armchair quarterback' perspective. Much of our knowledge and perspective now is added to existing knowledge. It was not that way during this classical rhetorical time.

In terms of true and false 'rhetoric' specifically, I view that as more about how the rhetoric is being used. Namely for the good of the masses, or the benefit of a few. Situating this in my field of science, I can think of examples of scientific concepts being communicated to the public, versus scientific jargon being used to manipulate the views of the audience to sell a product or promote an idea. This so-called 'pseudoscience' is an example of false rhetoric. The arguments may have some validity, but they are connected in ways that invalidate the argument as a whole.

Sophists and Sophistry.....

For ancient Greece, sophistry was an important way to transfer information and ideas. As a practice it reminds me a bit of 'The Society of the Spectacle' that we studied in Visual Rhetoric. Namely, the information being transferred is unclear due to the spectacle made of the delivery. Sophistry seems to capture this kind of spectacle and stretch the truth to the point of deceit. That is not to say that it is without good intention, namely 'truth seeking'. But it seems to have been ripe with propoganda. Sophists, though, are thought more of as bearers of wisdom. In some sense, teachers are perceived to play this role. But, the teachers are the messengers and maybe this isn't the same as the bearer of wisdom. Namely, it is not necessarily the 'truth' that they have sought, just the 'truth' that they have learned. I feel like I am talking in circles here, just like some of the figures we have already studied. But what it has shown me is that there IS purity in trying to figure things out and maybe, just maybe, there isn't always a single right answer. Maybe that is even a good thing because it keeps us wanting to know more. So that one single truth is that there is no one single truth.

It all makes me a bit uneasy and I am much more comfortable 'proving' things. But then Pythagoras kind of messed that up for me now. His universality of numbers, while true, has a big flaw. What is a number without a unit? It has no meaning. Having information about Pythagoras, Plato, Sophistry, Sophists and more presented in the graphic novel was a very helpful way for me to learn about these topics. I have had very limited experience with graphic novels, but am intrigued by their use of visuals to relay what can be extremely complex information. I think that there is a lot of value in presenting information this way and would classify it as an important tool of new media.

All of these topics play well into my idea(s) for a term paper. I am planning on focusing on audience and just as a number is meaningless without a unit, a message is meaningless without an audience. Furthermore, understanding the audience as well as the relevant tools of communication, helps to create a commonplace between the message, messenger and audience.

On Isocrates.....

"Isocrates rejected Plato's view of philosophy as the search for absolute truth, seeing it as more properly the study of how to address immediate practical problems. Rhetoric, then, in Isocrates' opinion, was a powerful tool for investigating such problems-where only probably, not certain, knowledge was available-and for moving people to action for the common good" (B&H 67). To me this translates into something like 'the truth is relative' and on this point I can agree with Isocrates. Truth is somewhat situational. Consider the statement 'It is sunny and warm today'. This is true, at this moment, in California. This is not true, at this moment, in many other parts of the country. It is statement of fact representing a truth. Pardon my elementary example, but I think that is why I found Gorgias so frustrating. It was difficult to always understand what facts were in dispute. The delivery seemed to be most important.

Regarding being perceived as the father of education, I think Isocrates describes organized learning quite eloquently when defending the study of math and science, "For while we are occupied with the subtlety and exactness of astronomy and geometry and are forced to apply our minds to difficult problems, and are, in addition, being habituated to speak and apply ourselves to what is said and shown to us, and not to let our wits go wool-gathering, we gain the power, after being exercised and sharpened on these disciplines, of grasping and learning more easily and more quickly those subjects which are of more importance and of greater value" (B&H 76). I interpret this to mean that learning, for the sake of learning, helps to exercise and train our minds to be able to learn more.

As an extension of Isocrates philosophy, I would add that in a world where there is a seemingly constant evolution of ideas and truths, it has become increasingly important to be able to contextualize and situate learned knowledge within practical applications of that knowledge. That is the new challenge of education.