Okay here is an excellent example of how the sophistic view of human reason steers away from the project of discovering truth. Rather reason in this depiction drives highspeed toward simply becoming a crafy device for swaying others to one's own opinion. To be sure I am not taking sides with this article but I just thought it was a really interesting essay that may help us understand the role of rhetoric for shaping one's morality. Interestingly enought it also broadens its meaning to include the totality of one's actions in an argument.
http://www.slate.com/id/2269715/pagenum/2
You have no idea how happy you made me just now. I'm doing a project on the extent to which the actions of the federal government effect public school integration in the South as part of my senior sociology project. This undertaking was spurred on by the utter insanity that was produced in the Parents involved in community Schools V. Seattle District #1 case (2007). After I finished the 1st paragraph of the article I intended to write "if you want to stop discriminating based on race, then stop discriminating based on race" only to find that exact nutso quote at the bottom of the article, which totally ignores American racialized history in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteI recommend reading an article called "Plessy 2.0." It is a law review article written by Ronald Turner from Lewis and Clark University. the basic premise is that Parents Involved in Community Schools set the clock back 112 years to the 1896 case Plessy V. Furgeson, which established the Separate but Equal doctrine.
The article further posits that Clarence Thomas, supreme traitor to the African American community reinterpreter Brown V. Board AS reaffirming Plessy V. Ferguson. That's right, Clarence Thomas essentially stated that Brown was never meant to integrate schools, but to strike down legal segregation. all attempts at integration have always been unconstitutional.
Finally, the court's ruling in this case went against the rulings in many other cases, in that the literalist interpretationists (an oxymoron in itself YOU CAN'T INTERPRET SOMETHING AT FACE VALUE, THAT IS CALLED READING) in that they claimed that the court may not use social science data in the ruling of a case, but may only use the language of the constitution.
Brown V. Board I 1954 and Grutters V. Bollinger 2003 both used social science data in determining the outcome of the case AND BOTH OF THEM WERE USED AS SUPPORT FOR THE PARENTS INVOLVED CASE despite the fact that the ROBERTS COURT was directly misinterpreting them.
John, Brown & Grutters were both written with the express purpose of using race as a factor in school admissions and assignments. The magicians here read them to the opposite effect.
Wow my blood pressure is high now.
-Max
P.S. Regarding sophistry, which I assume birthed the words "sophomore" and "sophomoric" very much applies to Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy. What the hell is the matter with you guys? They sit at the highest court in the land and read everything as affirming that which they believe, even if (and especially if) what they are reading was intended as the exact opposite. Wise Fools.
"A crafty device for swaying others to one's own opinion"...sounds oddly familiar. For example, an "article" by a liberal blog that all students are supposed to learn, understand, and in the majority of our current liberal arts university systems...agree with.
ReplyDeleteNo thank you, I'll read CNN for news, Slate for fun, and keep my own independence at the end of the night.
Excellent point Christopher. The article itself is a good example of "liberal rhetoric." So I ask though what makes CNN more objective? Why do you trust this source?
ReplyDeleteSadly, in these times we don't know who to trust anymore as every government organization/figure has it's own personal/political agenda in mind. I guess it's a side effect of being human...but at the end of the day, those in power fail to realize that it hurts society more than it helps their own status.
ReplyDeleteIts not to say CNN is more objective...clearly its not. But as a source of hourly news, its widely known to be less biased than Fox or MSNBC. This is coming from a conservative, mind you.
ReplyDelete