Syllogisms

What I thought was interesting in this chapter were all the different types of arguments and syllogisms that were mentioned. A syllogism is a form of deductive argument that presents two supporting premises which are followed by a conclusion. An example would be; all men are mortal, all fathers are men, therefore all fathers are mortal. I thought it was interesting how the book seemed to break down the deductions we make. I never really thought about how knowing one thing for certain can lead to us knowing several other things through association and reasoning. Of course, as the chapter went on to explain, not all premises are correct which makes their syllogisms invalid. The books give the example argument; all men are tall people, tom cruise is a man, therefore tom cruise is a tall person. This would be an example of how one false premise can make a syllogism invalid. The incorrect premise of all men are tall people is what ruined the argument.

Question 2 (Death Penalty)

Jesus taught us not to return hate for hate or evil for evil. With this in mind, one might be able to assert this syllogism. Jesus’ teachings are the base of Christianity. He taught that you should never take a life. Therefore, Christians are against the taking of a life. If you look at it this way, then it seems to be a very simple matter. Jesus Christ said that it is wrong to take a life, therefore all Christians should be against the death penalty as it is the taking of a life. However, I’ve found that, where people are involved, things are hardly ever so cut and dry. I think it is hard to find absolutes when it comes to what a group of people do or do not believe, mostly because everyone is different and we all see the world from our own point of view. Though the argument seems sound, I think there is still room for exception.  Not every Christian is going to believe that the death penalty is wrong and it likely has nothing to do with how strongly they believe in Jesus’ teachings but rather how they choose to interpret them. As a Christian, I have struggled with whether I’m for or against the death penalty and I can’t quite say I’ve decided one way or the other yet.

Question 1 (Reasoning)

Sherlock Holmes says, in regard to reasoning, that the difficulty comes in detaching the framework of undeniable fact from the embellishment of hearsay and reporters. I believe what Holmes was trying to explain is how hard it is to differentiate between what is the truth and what is merely believed to be the truth. A friend of mine spent the last eighteen years of his life thinking that the people who raised him were his biological parents, only finding out the truth recently. I had always noticed how he looked a little different from his parents. Their skin was fair while his was a little darker. They had dirty blonde hair while he had black. However, I never thought to question whether or not they were his biological parents. I had just accepted it as the truth, despite all of the clues. I think the same could be said about my friend. They were his parents. They had loved him, raised him, and helped him throughout his life. Why would he ever question what they said was true? Sherlock Holmes uses reason to tear away assumptions and opinions, leaving only the facts and the truth behind. I don’t think this is something that most people could do quite as easily as he does, but then again, that’s the beauty of Sherlock Holmes; he’s fiction.

8 Steps

Chapter six lists eight steps that can help us improve our arguments. First, we must develop a list of premises. After that, we move onto eliminating irrelevant premises, establishing a conclusion, organizing our arguments, testing our arguments, revising it if we need to and lastly acting on our conclusion. I found the section regarding the eight steps and premises to be very interesting. It made me realize how inadequate some of my arguments have been in the past and how I can hope to improve them in the future. I liked how this chapter showed that there is a proper way to argue with someone that minimizes the risks of hurting feelings or offending. I’ve never really liked arguing with people. I would much rather discuss the matter like an adult. However, with what I have learned from this chapter, I feel like I am ready to tackle the next argument that comes my way.

Question 2 (Standing Your Ground)

I cannot say there has ever been a time in my life where standing up for something has put me in risk of losing my friends or job. Of course, that is not to say that I’m the sort to cower away from confrontation. It is rather that none of my relationships had been flimsy enough to have been broken by one disagreement, at least not the ones that truly mattered to me. None of the bosses I have worked under ever put me in a position where I needed to stand my ground against them either. I think the reason I have never found myself in this sort of position is because I instinctively surround myself with tolerant and understanding people, who are more inclined to discuss different point of views rather than argue about them. I do believe that if I was ever put in the position in which I needed to stand up for what I believed, even at the risk of my relationship or job, I would take a stand and do what is right. I think what I’ve learned in this chapter would help me stand my ground.

Question 1 (Same-sex Marriage)

President Obama opposes gay marriage, but does support civil union between same-sex couples. I think most would say he contradicts himself by supporting gay marriage, but not following through and making sure they receive the same rights as other married couples. I can see how his hesitation can make it confusing to determine which side he truly stands for. However, I can also see how absolute support of gay marriage might put him in a position to alienate those who are against it. I, personally, see no reason why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry one another. Then again, I am not president nor can I imagine the pressure that comes with trying to be for everyone when there are hardly any instances in which everyone agrees. Given President Obama’s recent actions, I would think he would respond to Nava and Dawidoff by trying to find a way to appeal to all sides, as most politicians are wont to do. I can’t say I think it would be the right course of action though.

Introduction

Hello

I’m a junior here at San Jose State University and, for the last couple years, my major has been Graphic Design. However, I decided to change it up a little this year and I am now majoring in English. Art and English have always been the two great passions in my life, thus I often find myself wrestling with which one I should pursue. Hopefully, I will be able to find a career that incorporates a little of both. I took an online Comm 10 course last semester and enjoyed it very much. I didn’t know what to make of it at first, but I ended up learning a lot from the instructor and my peers.  I’m eager to be a part of this course and looking forward to getting to know everyone a little better through our discussions and blogging. I hope we all have a great semester in Comm 41.