There are two papers posted on Blackboard for BPR--BPR #3 and BPR #4. (Find them under "course materials: BPRs: Fall 2011.")
Read these papers sometime in the next week (the authors would probably prefer by Friday since the final drafts are due Monday) and leave your own revision ideas/comments in a comment on this post. (They're short papers so it shouldn't take very long.)
Since this is the last full week of the semester, these are the last two BPR's I'm going to post.
Good luck to everyone!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Alex's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
A Zealous Argument Against Over-Zealousness
It is one thing to want. It is another thing entirely to achieve. The defining feature of genius is not zeal alone, though the heights of great men reached and kept were never realized without the fuel of desire, but rather understanding and mastery of great truth is the element that separates the wanna-bes and the Einstein’s of any given field. The stereotypical doomsday naysayer is as much religious zealot as any Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Joseph Smith. The difference however, resides in Hugh Nibley’s admonition for an acquisition of knowledge to match desire. In his essay Zeal Without Knowledge Nibley explores the relationship between the two, and how the inevitability of thought allows every individual to shape their own very personalized world. Through his extensive use of referencing, satire and didacticism, rhetorical questions, and metaphor he is able to successfully convince and motivate his pious Mormon audience not only to expand their own world, but to do so in a correct manner, according to “real intelligence and solid knowledge.”
A great strength of Nibley’s argument comes from his reference of numerous theologians, scholars, and prophets. By quoting the likes of Nigel Calder, N. S. Southerland, William James, Aristotle, Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young, and Moroni he is able to lend his voice to a chorus of others who make the point for him, and the diversity of these sources provides authority and perspective to the case for knowledge. The first instance of referencing occurs in the opening paragraph with Nibley’s quotation of Calder asserting “[that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time.” This sets up his premise that because “you can only think of one thing at a time,” the very act of thinking is a resource that must be allotted carefully and wisely. Nibley subsequently shows his audience that this “crippling limitation” is a fundamental element of the “test of [our] real character, making this life a time of testing and probation,” and that to waste time and thought is a sin. In quoting Calder and others and referencing scriptures such as 2 Nephi 9:27 and Mormon 9:28 Nibley is able to shape his foundational opening argument, establish its validity, and transition to the subject of zeal without knowledge.
Another example of referencing occurs when Nibley alludes to the over-zealousness that characterized the early Saints of Kirtland and quotes from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that describe how the Prophet Joseph, in speaking to the Relief Society, “commended them for their zeal, but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge.” This lies at the heart of Nibley’s admonition, provides a parallel for modern times that he sets against the behavior of today’s Mormon, and helps him to illustrate how “zeal makes us loyal and unflinching,” but in the end “the principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation.” In addition this also points to Nibley’s masterful reference of stories that provide stark examples of men such as Oliver Cowdery, Mr. Olney, and the modern and ancient Israelite who let their zeal outpace their knowledge, who “’[look] beyond the mark’ and [fall] on their faces,” and who are all very persuasive in what not to do.
Although much of Nibley’s argument is built on references that speak both for themselves and for him, the true convincing power of his case for knowledge comes from his didacticism and use of satire. The prime example of this is his constant mention of some of the beliefs and mind-sets of BYU students and graduates. After persuading his audience of the importance of “real intelligence and solid knowledge,” Nibley proceeds to expose several different weaknesses of character that have developed in these individuals, such as the answer book attitude, the abolishing of the Graduate Record Examination, and the avoidance of “serious [spiritual] matters” in the classroom setting. He satirizes these attitudes, and makes the argument just personal enough to truly motivate his audience to change. This is especially obvious when he describes those who claim to “understand the scriptures by pure revelation” and thus “[don’t] need to toil at Greek or Hebrew as the Prophet and Brethren did in the School of the Prophets.” The absurdity of such an attitude acts as an example of how many in ranks of modern Mormonism choose to operate by zeal alone, and he makes clear “where that philosophy came from” and what consequences await these individuals whose minds have been decoyed by the devil.
Nibley’s didacticism constantly bleeds through the page. His essay is meant to be largely instructive, and one example of this instruction is when he mentions that “we must know what we are doing, understand the problem, live with it, [and] lay a proper foundation.” He presents this formula as one for meriting the “revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” Two halves of the motivation process are pointing out the problem and outlining a solution. By satirizing the problem of over-zealousness and providing the reader with the “shoulds” and “musts” that relate to the pursuit of zeal with knowledge Nibley effectively motivates his audience to “seek the knowledge [God] wants us to seek.”
Beyond satire and didacticism Hugh Nibley utilizes rhetorical questions to highlight several of his points and to further personalize and simplify his argument for the rise of over-zealousness and the need to temper that rise with knowledge. One example of this is when he asks: “why do people feel guilty about TV?” Not only is this question effective for its modern appeal to a very relatable phenomenon, but the question itself allows Nibley to further clarify that because man is so limited in his thoughts he cannot afford to waste time on the “vain and trifling.” The example of watching television also serves to highlight the trap of a failure to expand, or to “advance in knowledge,” and how a man “cannot expand the boundaries of [his mind] unless [he] first reach those boundaries, which means exerting… to the absolute limit.”
Another instance of Nibley’s use of rhetorical questions comes when, in his closing argument, he asks “don’t you trust the Lord?” This question strikes at the heart of every member of his Latter-Day Saint audience, and further personalizes his point. This concluding inquiry is masterful for its representation of Nibley’s over-arching caution for a proper use of thought to seek after knowledge. In providing the answer to this question he says “If you do, he will give you the guidance of the Holy Spirit and you will not end up doing the things that he has expressly commanded us not to do.” It is his ultimate solution, for in trusting the Lord his reader is able to merit the spirit of revelation, of knowledge, and is therefore better equipped to direct zeal properly, and avoid the traps of ignorance and contraction.
One final tool Nibley utilizes to clarify his argument for the reader is his use of metaphor. For example, in describing Zeal he defines it “as the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere.” Like his use of rhetorical questions, this and other metaphors serve to simplify the relationship between zeal and knowledge. Through his comparison of the two to a car the audience is better able to understand the importance of both despite their different functions. Nibley qualifies this assertion and adds an air of caution by stating that “without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, [the] mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction, and the more powerful the motor, the more disastrous the inevitable crack-up if the proper knowledge is lacking.” This leaves no doubt as to the importance of zeal but also the need for knowledge, and having established this fact Nibley is later able to expound upon this issue and build upon the readers understanding of the subject.
The path to genius is twofold, for it is one thing to want, and another thing entirely to know. In order to advance and to expand beyond religious zealot and into the realm of the great, of the Calvins, Luthers, and Smiths, one must have both. This is Hugh Nibley’s point in Zeal Without Knowledge. This is what a person must have in order to avoid living a life of smoke and mirrors, and such knowledge, fueled by zeal, is what allows man to truly expand his world and draw near to God.
Works Cited.
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge.” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susen Jorgenesn. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-218. Print.
It is one thing to want. It is another thing entirely to achieve. The defining feature of genius is not zeal alone, though the heights of great men reached and kept were never realized without the fuel of desire, but rather understanding and mastery of great truth is the element that separates the wanna-bes and the Einstein’s of any given field. The stereotypical doomsday naysayer is as much religious zealot as any Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Joseph Smith. The difference however, resides in Hugh Nibley’s admonition for an acquisition of knowledge to match desire. In his essay Zeal Without Knowledge Nibley explores the relationship between the two, and how the inevitability of thought allows every individual to shape their own very personalized world. Through his extensive use of referencing, satire and didacticism, rhetorical questions, and metaphor he is able to successfully convince and motivate his pious Mormon audience not only to expand their own world, but to do so in a correct manner, according to “real intelligence and solid knowledge.”
A great strength of Nibley’s argument comes from his reference of numerous theologians, scholars, and prophets. By quoting the likes of Nigel Calder, N. S. Southerland, William James, Aristotle, Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young, and Moroni he is able to lend his voice to a chorus of others who make the point for him, and the diversity of these sources provides authority and perspective to the case for knowledge. The first instance of referencing occurs in the opening paragraph with Nibley’s quotation of Calder asserting “[that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time.” This sets up his premise that because “you can only think of one thing at a time,” the very act of thinking is a resource that must be allotted carefully and wisely. Nibley subsequently shows his audience that this “crippling limitation” is a fundamental element of the “test of [our] real character, making this life a time of testing and probation,” and that to waste time and thought is a sin. In quoting Calder and others and referencing scriptures such as 2 Nephi 9:27 and Mormon 9:28 Nibley is able to shape his foundational opening argument, establish its validity, and transition to the subject of zeal without knowledge.
Another example of referencing occurs when Nibley alludes to the over-zealousness that characterized the early Saints of Kirtland and quotes from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that describe how the Prophet Joseph, in speaking to the Relief Society, “commended them for their zeal, but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge.” This lies at the heart of Nibley’s admonition, provides a parallel for modern times that he sets against the behavior of today’s Mormon, and helps him to illustrate how “zeal makes us loyal and unflinching,” but in the end “the principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation.” In addition this also points to Nibley’s masterful reference of stories that provide stark examples of men such as Oliver Cowdery, Mr. Olney, and the modern and ancient Israelite who let their zeal outpace their knowledge, who “’[look] beyond the mark’ and [fall] on their faces,” and who are all very persuasive in what not to do.
Although much of Nibley’s argument is built on references that speak both for themselves and for him, the true convincing power of his case for knowledge comes from his didacticism and use of satire. The prime example of this is his constant mention of some of the beliefs and mind-sets of BYU students and graduates. After persuading his audience of the importance of “real intelligence and solid knowledge,” Nibley proceeds to expose several different weaknesses of character that have developed in these individuals, such as the answer book attitude, the abolishing of the Graduate Record Examination, and the avoidance of “serious [spiritual] matters” in the classroom setting. He satirizes these attitudes, and makes the argument just personal enough to truly motivate his audience to change. This is especially obvious when he describes those who claim to “understand the scriptures by pure revelation” and thus “[don’t] need to toil at Greek or Hebrew as the Prophet and Brethren did in the School of the Prophets.” The absurdity of such an attitude acts as an example of how many in ranks of modern Mormonism choose to operate by zeal alone, and he makes clear “where that philosophy came from” and what consequences await these individuals whose minds have been decoyed by the devil.
Nibley’s didacticism constantly bleeds through the page. His essay is meant to be largely instructive, and one example of this instruction is when he mentions that “we must know what we are doing, understand the problem, live with it, [and] lay a proper foundation.” He presents this formula as one for meriting the “revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” Two halves of the motivation process are pointing out the problem and outlining a solution. By satirizing the problem of over-zealousness and providing the reader with the “shoulds” and “musts” that relate to the pursuit of zeal with knowledge Nibley effectively motivates his audience to “seek the knowledge [God] wants us to seek.”
Beyond satire and didacticism Hugh Nibley utilizes rhetorical questions to highlight several of his points and to further personalize and simplify his argument for the rise of over-zealousness and the need to temper that rise with knowledge. One example of this is when he asks: “why do people feel guilty about TV?” Not only is this question effective for its modern appeal to a very relatable phenomenon, but the question itself allows Nibley to further clarify that because man is so limited in his thoughts he cannot afford to waste time on the “vain and trifling.” The example of watching television also serves to highlight the trap of a failure to expand, or to “advance in knowledge,” and how a man “cannot expand the boundaries of [his mind] unless [he] first reach those boundaries, which means exerting… to the absolute limit.”
Another instance of Nibley’s use of rhetorical questions comes when, in his closing argument, he asks “don’t you trust the Lord?” This question strikes at the heart of every member of his Latter-Day Saint audience, and further personalizes his point. This concluding inquiry is masterful for its representation of Nibley’s over-arching caution for a proper use of thought to seek after knowledge. In providing the answer to this question he says “If you do, he will give you the guidance of the Holy Spirit and you will not end up doing the things that he has expressly commanded us not to do.” It is his ultimate solution, for in trusting the Lord his reader is able to merit the spirit of revelation, of knowledge, and is therefore better equipped to direct zeal properly, and avoid the traps of ignorance and contraction.
One final tool Nibley utilizes to clarify his argument for the reader is his use of metaphor. For example, in describing Zeal he defines it “as the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere.” Like his use of rhetorical questions, this and other metaphors serve to simplify the relationship between zeal and knowledge. Through his comparison of the two to a car the audience is better able to understand the importance of both despite their different functions. Nibley qualifies this assertion and adds an air of caution by stating that “without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, [the] mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction, and the more powerful the motor, the more disastrous the inevitable crack-up if the proper knowledge is lacking.” This leaves no doubt as to the importance of zeal but also the need for knowledge, and having established this fact Nibley is later able to expound upon this issue and build upon the readers understanding of the subject.
The path to genius is twofold, for it is one thing to want, and another thing entirely to know. In order to advance and to expand beyond religious zealot and into the realm of the great, of the Calvins, Luthers, and Smiths, one must have both. This is Hugh Nibley’s point in Zeal Without Knowledge. This is what a person must have in order to avoid living a life of smoke and mirrors, and such knowledge, fueled by zeal, is what allows man to truly expand his world and draw near to God.
Works Cited.
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge.” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susen Jorgenesn. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-218. Print.
Kalyn's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
Kalyn Floyd
Professor Spencer
Writing 150
11/20/11
Zeal without Knowledge
In Zeal without Knowledge Hugh Nibley uses quotes and analogies to argue to his LDS audience that without knowledge our zeal is for not. Though the idea is simple enough the method he chooses to support it causes the audience to get lost in his words.
Through out the paper Nibley quotes the the Scriptures (both book of Mormon and the Bible),the prophet Joseph Smith, as well as scholarly books. Normally this would lead to a solid support system for the theories that are presented however, in this case, it does not. For example Nibley quotes the Bible when he discusses the narrow mindedness of the people in regards to how God thinks,
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are...my thought than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9)
In what way does this convey that idea? Should not quotes improve the readers understanding of the text and not make them more confused?
In another instance Nibley does the same thing with a quote from Joseph Smith, “ The mind or the intelligence which man possess is co-equal to with God himself” While this quote is much more simple in regards to what it means its relevance is yet to be decided. As the reader continues they realize that the idea presented in the paragraph is that one should expand their knowledge. However just prior to this revelation a contradiction is exposed. Too much knowledge can lead to an excess of zeal and thus one will not appreciate any more intelligence that they could gain. If this is the case why then would Joseph Smith say that the mind is equal to that of God?
Then there are the authors. Nibley quotes Nigel Calder, William James, Nicolas Malebranche, Arthur Schopenhauser,Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan just to name a few. approximately every few sentences Nibley throws in a quote that should, in theory, support his claims. Some do just that but others lead the reader scratching their head not entirely sure what the point was. The extensive use of quotes makes the reader feel overwhelmed with facts that don’t one hundred percent support the claims and, even when they do, the claims seem irrelevant.
In his second paragraph Nibley describes the act of putting on a set of glasses with two different colored lenses. He says that our mind does not see both colors at once but rather both colors one at a time in quick succession. This is to prove that the mind can only focus on one thing at a time. While this is true again relevance is called to question. If, as both the title and the entire second half of his article lead us to believe, his point is to say that without knowledge zeal is worth nothing this idea doesn’t matter and only tacks on length to his article. By doing this Nibley causes the reader to have to pause and reread which disrupts the flow of thought and distracts the reader from the ultimate point of the article.
Nibley’s thoughts seem to be scattered which make them difficult to read and understand. If he had stuck to one main idea the article would have been much simpler and much more effective. However because he chose not to do this the article is convoluted and difficult to read even for an educated audience.
Works cited
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-217. Print
Professor Spencer
Writing 150
11/20/11
Zeal without Knowledge
In Zeal without Knowledge Hugh Nibley uses quotes and analogies to argue to his LDS audience that without knowledge our zeal is for not. Though the idea is simple enough the method he chooses to support it causes the audience to get lost in his words.
Through out the paper Nibley quotes the the Scriptures (both book of Mormon and the Bible),the prophet Joseph Smith, as well as scholarly books. Normally this would lead to a solid support system for the theories that are presented however, in this case, it does not. For example Nibley quotes the Bible when he discusses the narrow mindedness of the people in regards to how God thinks,
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are...my thought than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9)
In what way does this convey that idea? Should not quotes improve the readers understanding of the text and not make them more confused?
In another instance Nibley does the same thing with a quote from Joseph Smith, “ The mind or the intelligence which man possess is co-equal to with God himself” While this quote is much more simple in regards to what it means its relevance is yet to be decided. As the reader continues they realize that the idea presented in the paragraph is that one should expand their knowledge. However just prior to this revelation a contradiction is exposed. Too much knowledge can lead to an excess of zeal and thus one will not appreciate any more intelligence that they could gain. If this is the case why then would Joseph Smith say that the mind is equal to that of God?
Then there are the authors. Nibley quotes Nigel Calder, William James, Nicolas Malebranche, Arthur Schopenhauser,Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan just to name a few. approximately every few sentences Nibley throws in a quote that should, in theory, support his claims. Some do just that but others lead the reader scratching their head not entirely sure what the point was. The extensive use of quotes makes the reader feel overwhelmed with facts that don’t one hundred percent support the claims and, even when they do, the claims seem irrelevant.
In his second paragraph Nibley describes the act of putting on a set of glasses with two different colored lenses. He says that our mind does not see both colors at once but rather both colors one at a time in quick succession. This is to prove that the mind can only focus on one thing at a time. While this is true again relevance is called to question. If, as both the title and the entire second half of his article lead us to believe, his point is to say that without knowledge zeal is worth nothing this idea doesn’t matter and only tacks on length to his article. By doing this Nibley causes the reader to have to pause and reread which disrupts the flow of thought and distracts the reader from the ultimate point of the article.
Nibley’s thoughts seem to be scattered which make them difficult to read and understand. If he had stuck to one main idea the article would have been much simpler and much more effective. However because he chose not to do this the article is convoluted and difficult to read even for an educated audience.
Works cited
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-217. Print
Erik's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
Erik Heras
Professor Spencer
Writing 150 Honors
November 28, 2011
Critical Analysis of Zeal Without Knowledge by Hugh Nibley
In the passage Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley extensively and effectively uses analogies, examples and quotations to increase the audience’s comprehension and to appeal to ethos. Through these literary devices Nibley successfully guides the reader through each point he is trying to advance. However, the organization of the ideas was very confusing and prevented the full understanding of what the passage was about as a whole. Although the small ideas are easy to grasp as they are presented, the big picture is not as clear.
Analogy is used extensively in this essay. It is very useful tool as it helps the reader better understand abstract ideas by embodying them in more tangible and easily visualized concepts. For example, when Dr. Nibley begins talking about zeal, he uses an automotive analogy: “Zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere. But without clutch, throttle, brakes and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction, and the more powerful the motor, the more disastrous the inevitable crack-up if the proper knowledge is lacking.” From this, one understands that Dr. Nibley is trying to say that zeal can be destructive without the proper knowledge guiding it in the right direction. Analogies are also typically more memorable than abstract statements. One remembers the ideas better when they are presented in way that is easily visualized.
The use of examples is another widely used tool throughout the passage. This helps the reader visualize the idea by giving the reader something to tie the idea into. On the first page of the text, to illustrate the concept that our minds can only focus on one idea at a time, he says, “If you put on a pair of glasses, one lens being green, the other being red, you will not see a gray fusion of the two when you look about you, but a flashing of green and red. One moment everything will be green, another moment everything will be red.” From this it is much easier to picture and comprehend the concept he is discussing. On the third page of the text, when talking about how sin is when potential is wasted, he gives an example which relates to his most likely audience (average Americans like us): “Why do people feel guilty about TV? What is wrong with it? Just this—that it shuts out all the wonderful things of which the mind is capable, leaving it drugged in a state of thoughtless stupor.” Through this the likely audience can make a connection between the familiar idea of wasting time watching TV and the resulting guilt and the idea of wasting time being a sin.
The use of quotations adds credibility to the writing, by borrowing the authority of other sources. Quotations are used extensively in this essay. In the first page alone, Dr. Nibley quotes five different sources. Quoting N.S. Sutherland, “’The eye is always flickering about...The brain adds together a variety of impressions at high speed.’” This quote reinforces and expands on Dr. Nibley’s discussion of the thought process and the way our minds works. By quoting other sources it gives the reader the impression that the author has a strong understanding of the subject and what other people have to say about the subject. As a result, it gives more credibility to his own ideas. He uses quotes to introduce, back up and expand on his ideas. By using quotations, the points in the text are strengthened.
Although every individual idea is presented in a way that is typically easy to grasp, and each idea is connected to the others, overall, it seems that the text covers so much subject matter that it is hard for the reader to keep track of all the ideas and see how they come together into one big picture. The title does not seem to be comprehensive. Zeal as it pertains to knowledge seems to be only a part of a larger whole, but the title leads the reader to think that it was the main topic of the text. It is difficult to identify a single, all-encompassing main topic of the text, as both the title and the organization are a bit confusing to the overall understanding of the text.
Literary devices of analogy, example and quotation are used in this essay to help the reader understand individual concepts. However, the passage as a whole is difficult to connect together under a single theme. As the text progresses, the reader is left to wonder how all the ideas come together.
Professor Spencer
Writing 150 Honors
November 28, 2011
Critical Analysis of Zeal Without Knowledge by Hugh Nibley
In the passage Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley extensively and effectively uses analogies, examples and quotations to increase the audience’s comprehension and to appeal to ethos. Through these literary devices Nibley successfully guides the reader through each point he is trying to advance. However, the organization of the ideas was very confusing and prevented the full understanding of what the passage was about as a whole. Although the small ideas are easy to grasp as they are presented, the big picture is not as clear.
Analogy is used extensively in this essay. It is very useful tool as it helps the reader better understand abstract ideas by embodying them in more tangible and easily visualized concepts. For example, when Dr. Nibley begins talking about zeal, he uses an automotive analogy: “Zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere. But without clutch, throttle, brakes and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction, and the more powerful the motor, the more disastrous the inevitable crack-up if the proper knowledge is lacking.” From this, one understands that Dr. Nibley is trying to say that zeal can be destructive without the proper knowledge guiding it in the right direction. Analogies are also typically more memorable than abstract statements. One remembers the ideas better when they are presented in way that is easily visualized.
The use of examples is another widely used tool throughout the passage. This helps the reader visualize the idea by giving the reader something to tie the idea into. On the first page of the text, to illustrate the concept that our minds can only focus on one idea at a time, he says, “If you put on a pair of glasses, one lens being green, the other being red, you will not see a gray fusion of the two when you look about you, but a flashing of green and red. One moment everything will be green, another moment everything will be red.” From this it is much easier to picture and comprehend the concept he is discussing. On the third page of the text, when talking about how sin is when potential is wasted, he gives an example which relates to his most likely audience (average Americans like us): “Why do people feel guilty about TV? What is wrong with it? Just this—that it shuts out all the wonderful things of which the mind is capable, leaving it drugged in a state of thoughtless stupor.” Through this the likely audience can make a connection between the familiar idea of wasting time watching TV and the resulting guilt and the idea of wasting time being a sin.
The use of quotations adds credibility to the writing, by borrowing the authority of other sources. Quotations are used extensively in this essay. In the first page alone, Dr. Nibley quotes five different sources. Quoting N.S. Sutherland, “’The eye is always flickering about...The brain adds together a variety of impressions at high speed.’” This quote reinforces and expands on Dr. Nibley’s discussion of the thought process and the way our minds works. By quoting other sources it gives the reader the impression that the author has a strong understanding of the subject and what other people have to say about the subject. As a result, it gives more credibility to his own ideas. He uses quotes to introduce, back up and expand on his ideas. By using quotations, the points in the text are strengthened.
Although every individual idea is presented in a way that is typically easy to grasp, and each idea is connected to the others, overall, it seems that the text covers so much subject matter that it is hard for the reader to keep track of all the ideas and see how they come together into one big picture. The title does not seem to be comprehensive. Zeal as it pertains to knowledge seems to be only a part of a larger whole, but the title leads the reader to think that it was the main topic of the text. It is difficult to identify a single, all-encompassing main topic of the text, as both the title and the organization are a bit confusing to the overall understanding of the text.
Literary devices of analogy, example and quotation are used in this essay to help the reader understand individual concepts. However, the passage as a whole is difficult to connect together under a single theme. As the text progresses, the reader is left to wonder how all the ideas come together.
Zach C's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
Zachary Cawley
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Writing 150 Honors
“Zeal Without Knowledge”
In the article “Zeal Without Knowledge”, Hugh Nibley examines the essence of knowledge and the mark it leaves in a religious sense. By examining knowledge in this way, Nibley provides an analysis of knowledge and sets a precept for the importance of its use in religion, especially that of the LDS faith, and brings zeal into this argument. By using in unison an appeal to logos and an appeal to pathos, Nibley gives a successful argument as to why people, mainly a LDS audience, should start thinking rather than put faith blindly into zeal.
Nibley first begins his article putting forth the information that “you can think of only one thing at a time” (207) and that “one thing is clear: the blocked-out signals are the unwanted ones, and the ones we favor are our ‘deliberate choices.’” There is then a lead into the fact that we must think and that the “substance of thought is knowledge.” (209). He continues with the need of knowledge, as “the very nature of man requires he use his to capacity” (210). The laying of the foundation of these facts lies as the main appeal to logos he uses as he leads into an appeal to pathos. By providing a logical base to think about his argument is able to have a strong base so that it wouldn’t matter too much who is in his audience as they wouldn’t be able to refute too much of what comes after.
Following his appeal to logos, Nibley leads directly into an appeal to pathos citing many scriptures and talking much about God. He notes, “a quality in which the Saints have always excelled is zeal” (210) “but God wants more than that” (210). He states that the young are especially susceptible to this, giving specific examples of BYU students and new converts, that feel that their belief and faith in the gospel guides them and stand as enough and as a substitute for knowledge. He then contests the idea behind this belief by asking in the eternal perspective what is it that we can truly take with us after this life. By doing this he is not only able to place a spiritual argument for why LDS members must do what they can to gain knowledge but also a logical one.
There are many relations to zeal and knowledge within this article but the main detail to grasp is that neither can substitute for the either. By using an appeal to logos in unity with an appeal to pathos Nibley provides a strong argument for this and helps LDS members realize that while zeal is a great thing to have, if substituted for knowledge then it leads to pride. But at the same time he asserts that if knowledge is used without zeal then things gained are not the best of what you can achieve.
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Writing 150 Honors
“Zeal Without Knowledge”
In the article “Zeal Without Knowledge”, Hugh Nibley examines the essence of knowledge and the mark it leaves in a religious sense. By examining knowledge in this way, Nibley provides an analysis of knowledge and sets a precept for the importance of its use in religion, especially that of the LDS faith, and brings zeal into this argument. By using in unison an appeal to logos and an appeal to pathos, Nibley gives a successful argument as to why people, mainly a LDS audience, should start thinking rather than put faith blindly into zeal.
Nibley first begins his article putting forth the information that “you can think of only one thing at a time” (207) and that “one thing is clear: the blocked-out signals are the unwanted ones, and the ones we favor are our ‘deliberate choices.’” There is then a lead into the fact that we must think and that the “substance of thought is knowledge.” (209). He continues with the need of knowledge, as “the very nature of man requires he use his to capacity” (210). The laying of the foundation of these facts lies as the main appeal to logos he uses as he leads into an appeal to pathos. By providing a logical base to think about his argument is able to have a strong base so that it wouldn’t matter too much who is in his audience as they wouldn’t be able to refute too much of what comes after.
Following his appeal to logos, Nibley leads directly into an appeal to pathos citing many scriptures and talking much about God. He notes, “a quality in which the Saints have always excelled is zeal” (210) “but God wants more than that” (210). He states that the young are especially susceptible to this, giving specific examples of BYU students and new converts, that feel that their belief and faith in the gospel guides them and stand as enough and as a substitute for knowledge. He then contests the idea behind this belief by asking in the eternal perspective what is it that we can truly take with us after this life. By doing this he is not only able to place a spiritual argument for why LDS members must do what they can to gain knowledge but also a logical one.
There are many relations to zeal and knowledge within this article but the main detail to grasp is that neither can substitute for the either. By using an appeal to logos in unity with an appeal to pathos Nibley provides a strong argument for this and helps LDS members realize that while zeal is a great thing to have, if substituted for knowledge then it leads to pride. But at the same time he asserts that if knowledge is used without zeal then things gained are not the best of what you can achieve.
Katrina's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
The Balancing Act: Zeal Without Knowledge Explained
In his work, Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley gives a warning not to let desires and passions overpower the need for building a foundation of knowledge. He warns against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. In order to affectively warn his audience, Nibley uses strategic italics and rhetorical questions, diction, imagery, and analogy to affectively persuade the reader to heed his warning.
Nibley effectively persuades his audience is through his strategic use of italics. By using italics, Nibley emphasizes simple words such as like; real, something, tested, not, and sought. This gives his writing more of a sense or oral persuasion by “speaking” these words to the mind, leading the reader to link concepts that Nebley feels are important. For example, he states, “overmuch zeal, which must ever prove dangerous.” Here Nibley’s italicized “dangerous” makes it harder for the audience to overlook a relatively common word and leads the mind to link the key point of overmuch zeal to danger. Because of the patterned nature of the italics in simple words the audience is given something familiar to follow throughout the work, grabbing the audience’s attention and making them more aware of Nibley’s warning.
Aside from the strategic use of italics Nibley’s use rhetorical questions further defines his warning, again giving his work an oral persuasive quality. Nibley questions, “Why do it the hard way, they ask at the BYU, when God has given us the answer book?” By asking a question, Nibley draws attention to the fact that knowledge consists of many intricate parts. He uses this to refine his argument that in order for zeal or excitement to be successful it must be balanced with knowledge. Another example Nibley uses at the end of his work is as follows, “If we leave his employ, what will become of us?” The answer is another question, “Don’t you trust the Lord?” He does not answer the question directly but instead sets the audience up to draw his conclusion. It is as if to say to the audience that they already knew the answer. This appeals to logic because the audience feels as if they already agree with the author. This is an effective way to convince the audience to heed Nibley’s warning—to not let their zeal or passions run faster than their acquired knowledge.
Nibley’s diction is expressed through his strong word choice. While explaining how lowering one’s standards produces a notable backlash Nibley comments, “[they] are immediately slapped and buffeted by a power that will not let [them] rest.” By choosing “slapped and buffeted,” Nibley is more effectively able to convey his warning through the use of the onomatopoeic words, helping to create both a visual and oral picture. If he had used “pushed” and “pulled” instead, of the more onomatopoeic words, slapped and buffeted, his diction might have been less effective in portraying the immediacy that Nibley wishes the audience feel.
Likewise, Nibley explains how wasting our time watching TV inhibits our ability to gain knowledge. Nibley affirms that TV leaves “[the mind] drugged in a state of thoughtless stupor.” The connotation of the words “drugged” and “stupor” further the author’s purpose by appealing to pathos. By using “drugged” and “thoughtless stupor,” the author’s diction effectively illustrates the affect TV has on minds.
Not only Nibley’s word choice, but also the connotation of his words presents creative and powerful imagery to the audience. Throughout Zeal Without Knowledge, Nibley creates a series of connective imagery summoning to the mind a logical thought pattern that strengthens Nibley’s warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. The choice of “game” throughout the paper produces a powerful imagery. Through the metaphor, the audience can see themselves playing a complicated board game where zeal and knowledge are the game pieces. One foal move and suddenly the balance between the two will tip, and it will be game over. As Nibley modifies “game” by adding adjectives such as, “probation game” or by putting it into the phrase, “one who plays the game honestly,” he draws the audience deeper into his imagery—giving depth to his logic by making the “game” parallel the audience’s life. The word choice “game” also invokes a powerful imagery causing the audience to reflect back to the many games they have played. This allows the audience to see how the balance between knowledge and zeal is much like their common board game. Each part must be used with exactness and strategic detail—the right amount at the right time.
Besides the imagery of the game, Nibley begins his work by using the imagery of a person wearing a pair of glasses with lens that are two different colors. The green and red lenses represent one’s thoughts. Nibley comments about the wearer, “[he or she] will not see a grey fusion of the two when [he or she] looks about [himself], but a flashing of red and green.” In other words, the wearer can only see one color or thought at a time. Nibley utilizes the imagery of the glasses wearer to illustrate two facts—the first being that man can only think of one thing at a time, and the second being that man must always be thinking. By using imagery, Nibley appeals to the logic of the reader by acknowledging the current thoughts of the audience yet at the same time inviting the audience to continue to be open to new ideas.
With that introduction, Nibley leads the audience into a logical analogy. He conveys his warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge by comparing the relationship between a car and its engine to the relationship between zeal and knowledge. He explains, “Zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere. But with clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction.” Thus Nibley expresses his concern for the “disastrous” effects of too much zeal with knowledge by using the analogy of the car and its engine. Just like with a car, it is necessary to have zeal or one would not have the drive to accomplish anything; however, just as with a car, pushing forward too fast or forcefully without proper knowledge of something can lead to accidents and possible disasters. Because a car is common to the audience, and because of the familiarity of his analogy Nibley’s imagery becomes more effective. Logos is awaked in the audience because it is easy to relate to the analogy that one needs knowledge to use a car properly and that if the engine of a car is too strong it could break down the weaker parts of the car. Thus the audience can see it equally logical that if one possesses too much zeal, a breakdown or disaster will be inevitable because the foundation of knowledge is not strong enough to support one’s zeal.
Using analogies and powerful images, Hugh Nibely warns his audience of the danger of letting their zeal out stride their knowledge. His use of italics, word choice and rhetorical questions help to establish his powerful diction which enables Nibley to effectively prove that zeal and knowledge must be maintained in balance.
In his work, Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley gives a warning not to let desires and passions overpower the need for building a foundation of knowledge. He warns against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. In order to affectively warn his audience, Nibley uses strategic italics and rhetorical questions, diction, imagery, and analogy to affectively persuade the reader to heed his warning.
Nibley effectively persuades his audience is through his strategic use of italics. By using italics, Nibley emphasizes simple words such as like; real, something, tested, not, and sought. This gives his writing more of a sense or oral persuasion by “speaking” these words to the mind, leading the reader to link concepts that Nebley feels are important. For example, he states, “overmuch zeal, which must ever prove dangerous.” Here Nibley’s italicized “dangerous” makes it harder for the audience to overlook a relatively common word and leads the mind to link the key point of overmuch zeal to danger. Because of the patterned nature of the italics in simple words the audience is given something familiar to follow throughout the work, grabbing the audience’s attention and making them more aware of Nibley’s warning.
Aside from the strategic use of italics Nibley’s use rhetorical questions further defines his warning, again giving his work an oral persuasive quality. Nibley questions, “Why do it the hard way, they ask at the BYU, when God has given us the answer book?” By asking a question, Nibley draws attention to the fact that knowledge consists of many intricate parts. He uses this to refine his argument that in order for zeal or excitement to be successful it must be balanced with knowledge. Another example Nibley uses at the end of his work is as follows, “If we leave his employ, what will become of us?” The answer is another question, “Don’t you trust the Lord?” He does not answer the question directly but instead sets the audience up to draw his conclusion. It is as if to say to the audience that they already knew the answer. This appeals to logic because the audience feels as if they already agree with the author. This is an effective way to convince the audience to heed Nibley’s warning—to not let their zeal or passions run faster than their acquired knowledge.
Nibley’s diction is expressed through his strong word choice. While explaining how lowering one’s standards produces a notable backlash Nibley comments, “[they] are immediately slapped and buffeted by a power that will not let [them] rest.” By choosing “slapped and buffeted,” Nibley is more effectively able to convey his warning through the use of the onomatopoeic words, helping to create both a visual and oral picture. If he had used “pushed” and “pulled” instead, of the more onomatopoeic words, slapped and buffeted, his diction might have been less effective in portraying the immediacy that Nibley wishes the audience feel.
Likewise, Nibley explains how wasting our time watching TV inhibits our ability to gain knowledge. Nibley affirms that TV leaves “[the mind] drugged in a state of thoughtless stupor.” The connotation of the words “drugged” and “stupor” further the author’s purpose by appealing to pathos. By using “drugged” and “thoughtless stupor,” the author’s diction effectively illustrates the affect TV has on minds.
Not only Nibley’s word choice, but also the connotation of his words presents creative and powerful imagery to the audience. Throughout Zeal Without Knowledge, Nibley creates a series of connective imagery summoning to the mind a logical thought pattern that strengthens Nibley’s warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. The choice of “game” throughout the paper produces a powerful imagery. Through the metaphor, the audience can see themselves playing a complicated board game where zeal and knowledge are the game pieces. One foal move and suddenly the balance between the two will tip, and it will be game over. As Nibley modifies “game” by adding adjectives such as, “probation game” or by putting it into the phrase, “one who plays the game honestly,” he draws the audience deeper into his imagery—giving depth to his logic by making the “game” parallel the audience’s life. The word choice “game” also invokes a powerful imagery causing the audience to reflect back to the many games they have played. This allows the audience to see how the balance between knowledge and zeal is much like their common board game. Each part must be used with exactness and strategic detail—the right amount at the right time.
Besides the imagery of the game, Nibley begins his work by using the imagery of a person wearing a pair of glasses with lens that are two different colors. The green and red lenses represent one’s thoughts. Nibley comments about the wearer, “[he or she] will not see a grey fusion of the two when [he or she] looks about [himself], but a flashing of red and green.” In other words, the wearer can only see one color or thought at a time. Nibley utilizes the imagery of the glasses wearer to illustrate two facts—the first being that man can only think of one thing at a time, and the second being that man must always be thinking. By using imagery, Nibley appeals to the logic of the reader by acknowledging the current thoughts of the audience yet at the same time inviting the audience to continue to be open to new ideas.
With that introduction, Nibley leads the audience into a logical analogy. He conveys his warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge by comparing the relationship between a car and its engine to the relationship between zeal and knowledge. He explains, “Zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere. But with clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction.” Thus Nibley expresses his concern for the “disastrous” effects of too much zeal with knowledge by using the analogy of the car and its engine. Just like with a car, it is necessary to have zeal or one would not have the drive to accomplish anything; however, just as with a car, pushing forward too fast or forcefully without proper knowledge of something can lead to accidents and possible disasters. Because a car is common to the audience, and because of the familiarity of his analogy Nibley’s imagery becomes more effective. Logos is awaked in the audience because it is easy to relate to the analogy that one needs knowledge to use a car properly and that if the engine of a car is too strong it could break down the weaker parts of the car. Thus the audience can see it equally logical that if one possesses too much zeal, a breakdown or disaster will be inevitable because the foundation of knowledge is not strong enough to support one’s zeal.
Using analogies and powerful images, Hugh Nibely warns his audience of the danger of letting their zeal out stride their knowledge. His use of italics, word choice and rhetorical questions help to establish his powerful diction which enables Nibley to effectively prove that zeal and knowledge must be maintained in balance.
Alexa's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
Alexa Pullan
11-28-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
“The Importance of Thoughts and Knowledge”
In “Zeal Without Knowledge”, Hugh Nibley stresses the importance of thoughts and how they relate to gaining knowledge. He writes that people should be “directing our minds to the highest possible object” thereby becoming the individuals that they are meant to be. He criticizes members of the church for having too much zeal and not caring about understanding. He points out that it does not matter how zealous a person is if they do not have an understanding. Through metaphors, appeal to logos, and quotes, Hugh Nibley successfully shows his audience that being zealous is not enough; it is important to train thoughts and constantly seek for knowledge.
Metaphors can be found throughout “Zeal Without Knowledge” and they help illustrate Nibley’s purpose. He compares being able to choose what someone thinks about to “choos[ing] from the heap whatever gem [someone] wants- but only one.” In this situation, all attention would be focused on one object and all others would drop into the background. Using this metaphor, Nibley shows two important principles. The first is thoughts are so important that they can be compared to treasures. Just as someone would treat a treasure with care, one should also treat thoughts with care. People today don’t really understand the importance of thoughts and waste time watching TV, or “merely sitting in meetings” (Nibley 209). The second important principle is that humans can only think about one thing at a time. Each and every thought is a choice. “If every choice I make expresses a preference… then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming... to God… the things to which I give supreme importance.” Think about the purpose of this life. Shouldn’t each and every thought be used to better oneself? Nibley compares zeal to an engine; however, the comparison also works between the mind and an engine. “Without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction” (Nibley 210). The clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel can be compared to knowledge. The more knowledge that is obtained, the more control there is over the “engine.”
Nibley appeals to his audience’s logos to prove his point. He begins with quoting findings from the latest scientific studies. Quoting Nigel Calder, he wrote, “‘Two of the most self-evident characteristics of the conscious mind [are that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time, [and] that, at least once a day,… the conscious mind is switched off.’” These studies, made by respected scientists, show how important each and every thought is. Nibley also gives obvious and ridiculous examples. “We think it more commendable to get up at five a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one- that is pure zeal…” (Nibley 213). Obviously, no one would really believe that a bad book is better than a well written book simply because the author woke up earlier to work on it. It isn’t logical. The ridiculous example makes it seem ridiculous to believe that zeal is more important, or even as important as, knowledge.
Nibley’s last, and most powerful, tool is his use of quotations. Nibley realizes that most of his audience will be members of the church. He quotes scriptures, something that members of the church have a firm testimony of, to prove his point. Because the scriptures are such a huge part of the LDS religion, many people agree without hesitation. His use of quotes, both shocking and firm, helps convince his audience of the importance of our thoughts and gaining knowledge. “Sin is waste. It is doing one thing when you should be doing other better things for which you have the capacity… ‘Probably 99 per cent of human ability has been wholly wasted,’ writes Arthur Clarke” (Nibley 209). Not only does Nibley point out that idle thoughts are sins, but he shows that everyone is in constant need of repentance; everyone falls short because such a small percentage of human ability is used.
Just as Abraham was constantly “seeking for greater light and knowledge” (Abraham 1:2), people today should be trying to obtain greater light and knowledge. Learning is a continuous and infinite process and if the human mind has the capability to only think of one thing at a time, it is extremely important that thoughts are benefiting and used to better oneself. Through metaphors, appeal to logos, and quotes, Hugh Nibley shows that this can successfully be done if one is willing to train their thoughts and constantly seek for knowledge.
11-28-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
“The Importance of Thoughts and Knowledge”
In “Zeal Without Knowledge”, Hugh Nibley stresses the importance of thoughts and how they relate to gaining knowledge. He writes that people should be “directing our minds to the highest possible object” thereby becoming the individuals that they are meant to be. He criticizes members of the church for having too much zeal and not caring about understanding. He points out that it does not matter how zealous a person is if they do not have an understanding. Through metaphors, appeal to logos, and quotes, Hugh Nibley successfully shows his audience that being zealous is not enough; it is important to train thoughts and constantly seek for knowledge.
Metaphors can be found throughout “Zeal Without Knowledge” and they help illustrate Nibley’s purpose. He compares being able to choose what someone thinks about to “choos[ing] from the heap whatever gem [someone] wants- but only one.” In this situation, all attention would be focused on one object and all others would drop into the background. Using this metaphor, Nibley shows two important principles. The first is thoughts are so important that they can be compared to treasures. Just as someone would treat a treasure with care, one should also treat thoughts with care. People today don’t really understand the importance of thoughts and waste time watching TV, or “merely sitting in meetings” (Nibley 209). The second important principle is that humans can only think about one thing at a time. Each and every thought is a choice. “If every choice I make expresses a preference… then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming... to God… the things to which I give supreme importance.” Think about the purpose of this life. Shouldn’t each and every thought be used to better oneself? Nibley compares zeal to an engine; however, the comparison also works between the mind and an engine. “Without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction” (Nibley 210). The clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel can be compared to knowledge. The more knowledge that is obtained, the more control there is over the “engine.”
Nibley appeals to his audience’s logos to prove his point. He begins with quoting findings from the latest scientific studies. Quoting Nigel Calder, he wrote, “‘Two of the most self-evident characteristics of the conscious mind [are that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time, [and] that, at least once a day,… the conscious mind is switched off.’” These studies, made by respected scientists, show how important each and every thought is. Nibley also gives obvious and ridiculous examples. “We think it more commendable to get up at five a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one- that is pure zeal…” (Nibley 213). Obviously, no one would really believe that a bad book is better than a well written book simply because the author woke up earlier to work on it. It isn’t logical. The ridiculous example makes it seem ridiculous to believe that zeal is more important, or even as important as, knowledge.
Nibley’s last, and most powerful, tool is his use of quotations. Nibley realizes that most of his audience will be members of the church. He quotes scriptures, something that members of the church have a firm testimony of, to prove his point. Because the scriptures are such a huge part of the LDS religion, many people agree without hesitation. His use of quotes, both shocking and firm, helps convince his audience of the importance of our thoughts and gaining knowledge. “Sin is waste. It is doing one thing when you should be doing other better things for which you have the capacity… ‘Probably 99 per cent of human ability has been wholly wasted,’ writes Arthur Clarke” (Nibley 209). Not only does Nibley point out that idle thoughts are sins, but he shows that everyone is in constant need of repentance; everyone falls short because such a small percentage of human ability is used.
Just as Abraham was constantly “seeking for greater light and knowledge” (Abraham 1:2), people today should be trying to obtain greater light and knowledge. Learning is a continuous and infinite process and if the human mind has the capability to only think of one thing at a time, it is extremely important that thoughts are benefiting and used to better oneself. Through metaphors, appeal to logos, and quotes, Hugh Nibley shows that this can successfully be done if one is willing to train their thoughts and constantly seek for knowledge.
Stefanie's analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"
Professor Kerry Spencer
WRTG 150H
11 November 2011
Zeal Without Knowledge: Gospel Education
Hugh Nibley has said, “Our search for knowledge should be ceaseless”. In the article “Zeal Without Knowledge” Nibley seeks to remind us -and if need be, teach us- that the gospel cannot only be taught and pursued with zeal and energy, but with deep study and the acquirement of knowledge. He urges the idea that every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should seek to gain more knowledge about the true doctrines and precepts of the gospel. Throughout the article, Nibley reinforces this argument and inspires his member audience to take a more scholarly approach to their spiritual education by forming logical arguments using literary tools such as relatable metaphors, thought provoking questions, and valuable quotations.
The first instance in which Nibley uses a metaphor to strengthen his argument is in describing zeal as “the engine that drives the whole vehicle” (210) of the church. However, he continues by saying that without “clutch, throttle, breaks and steering wheel,” (210)- in other words without control over zeal- there can be disastrous consequences. This metaphor proves to be very convincing since every reader understands the importance of these parts for the safe use of a vehicle. They can then relate this to the gospel. Suddenly Nibley’s point seems quite logical and even irrefutable. Zeal may give us momentum, but we need as much knowledge as possible to give us control and to steer us in the proper direction.
A second instance in which Nibley uses metaphors to strengthen his argument is when saying “there is no place for the cram course or the quickie where the gospel is concerned” (211). Through this metaphor, Nibley reminds his member audience of the level of vigour it takes to obtain any kind of worthwhile knowledge. He reminds his readers that just like any other learning, gospel learning is challenging and takes serious study, reflection and time to understand. It is very likely that the reader has an experience or an understanding of the disadvantages of cramming before an exam. Logically, they see that if secular learning takes effort and time, then surely the gospel, in all of its importance, must require an even higher level of study and time commitment for full understanding.
The second literary tool used by Nibley in convincing his audience is that of using thought provoking questions. He uses questions such as “what good is the power, […] without real intelligence and solid knowledge?” (210) to allow his audience to open their mind to a new, enlightened perspective. He then follows up each question with an explanation that answers the questions in the reader’s mind. This method is powerful in showing the reader just how logical Nibley’s position is.
Lastly, Nibley references both contemporary and historical authorities throughout this article by quoting previous lectures, talks and other sources pertaining to this issue. He uses the words of Karl Popper, N.S Sutherland, Joseph Smith Jr. and many others throughout his paper. This gives the reader the sense that Nibley’s ideas are not his alone but that he is echoing what we should already logically know.
Perhaps the greatest influences are the many quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith himself. Since Nibley’s article is directed to those belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is aware of how influential the words of prophets are in persuading the saints to change. This helps him to carry his message and argument deep into the heart of the individual reader.
It is through the use of these three methods- namely, the use of metaphors, questions, and quotations- that Nibley finds a way to enter into his reader’s minds and therein convince them of the authenticity of his message. By appealing to his readers’ inner logic, he is capable of inspiring them to take a different approach to their individual gospel education. He effectively convinces those who read ‘Zeal Without Knowledge” to reexamine their lives for the purpose of determining whether they have sufficiently obtaining knowledge, so as to not be misled by zeal.
Works Cited
Nibley, Hugh. Readings for Intensive Writers. . 5th. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. Print.
WRTG 150H
11 November 2011
Zeal Without Knowledge: Gospel Education
Hugh Nibley has said, “Our search for knowledge should be ceaseless”. In the article “Zeal Without Knowledge” Nibley seeks to remind us -and if need be, teach us- that the gospel cannot only be taught and pursued with zeal and energy, but with deep study and the acquirement of knowledge. He urges the idea that every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should seek to gain more knowledge about the true doctrines and precepts of the gospel. Throughout the article, Nibley reinforces this argument and inspires his member audience to take a more scholarly approach to their spiritual education by forming logical arguments using literary tools such as relatable metaphors, thought provoking questions, and valuable quotations.
The first instance in which Nibley uses a metaphor to strengthen his argument is in describing zeal as “the engine that drives the whole vehicle” (210) of the church. However, he continues by saying that without “clutch, throttle, breaks and steering wheel,” (210)- in other words without control over zeal- there can be disastrous consequences. This metaphor proves to be very convincing since every reader understands the importance of these parts for the safe use of a vehicle. They can then relate this to the gospel. Suddenly Nibley’s point seems quite logical and even irrefutable. Zeal may give us momentum, but we need as much knowledge as possible to give us control and to steer us in the proper direction.
A second instance in which Nibley uses metaphors to strengthen his argument is when saying “there is no place for the cram course or the quickie where the gospel is concerned” (211). Through this metaphor, Nibley reminds his member audience of the level of vigour it takes to obtain any kind of worthwhile knowledge. He reminds his readers that just like any other learning, gospel learning is challenging and takes serious study, reflection and time to understand. It is very likely that the reader has an experience or an understanding of the disadvantages of cramming before an exam. Logically, they see that if secular learning takes effort and time, then surely the gospel, in all of its importance, must require an even higher level of study and time commitment for full understanding.
The second literary tool used by Nibley in convincing his audience is that of using thought provoking questions. He uses questions such as “what good is the power, […] without real intelligence and solid knowledge?” (210) to allow his audience to open their mind to a new, enlightened perspective. He then follows up each question with an explanation that answers the questions in the reader’s mind. This method is powerful in showing the reader just how logical Nibley’s position is.
Lastly, Nibley references both contemporary and historical authorities throughout this article by quoting previous lectures, talks and other sources pertaining to this issue. He uses the words of Karl Popper, N.S Sutherland, Joseph Smith Jr. and many others throughout his paper. This gives the reader the sense that Nibley’s ideas are not his alone but that he is echoing what we should already logically know.
Perhaps the greatest influences are the many quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith himself. Since Nibley’s article is directed to those belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is aware of how influential the words of prophets are in persuading the saints to change. This helps him to carry his message and argument deep into the heart of the individual reader.
It is through the use of these three methods- namely, the use of metaphors, questions, and quotations- that Nibley finds a way to enter into his reader’s minds and therein convince them of the authenticity of his message. By appealing to his readers’ inner logic, he is capable of inspiring them to take a different approach to their individual gospel education. He effectively convinces those who read ‘Zeal Without Knowledge” to reexamine their lives for the purpose of determining whether they have sufficiently obtaining knowledge, so as to not be misled by zeal.
Works Cited
Nibley, Hugh. Readings for Intensive Writers. . 5th. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. Print.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Joselyn's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Joselyn Robertson
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Writing 150, section100
“Mother Eve”
Because of an Apple: A Critical Analysis
In Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor, Beverly Campbell presents 15 points establishing the role of Eve and conditions of the Fall. She successfully convinces a religiously educated LDS audience that the Fall is an essential step to salvation Eve correctly played her role in that step. Campbell illustrates this by effectively appealing to ethos and utilizing the science of word origin.
Doctrinal complexity concerning the Fall is cleared up with statements from scriptural authorities that appeal to ethos. One example is respected scriptorian Bruce R. McConkie’s explanation of the Fall, in which he pedestals the Fall with the Creation and the Atonement, illustrating that removing any one of these fundamental pillars destroys the worth of our existence. Later, when justifying the Fall, Elder McConkie declares, “They [Adam and Eve] must fall. They must become mortal. Death must enter the world. There is no other way” (275). His argument – the Fall is necessary for existence and salvation of mankind - becomes more powerful because of his standing as an LDS general authority and scripture scholar. While Campbell could outline the doctrine about the vitality of the Fall on her own, her use of authoritative quotes gives a stronger and more convincing backbone. LDS audiences are more likely to listen to a general authority an average church member. Campbell knows this and successfully incorporates appeals to ethos.
Furthering her use of appeals to ethos, Campbell also cites modern day prophets. For example, in the subsection concerning Eve’s role, Campbell uses a statement made by late President of the church Ezra Taft Benson. He declares, “In the beginning, God placed a woman in a companion role with the priesthood… she was to act in partnership with him” (274). He said this in the year after the church issued Official Declaration – 2, a time when women wondered if they were being discriminated against for not getting the priesthood; Campbell uses President Benson’s message to convince that Eve is a partner, an equal, with Adam. She deserves honor rather than a reputation as an evil influence. The general authorities’ messages are specifically effective for an educated LDS audience because prophetic messages are seen as direct revelation from God. Trusting in their priesthood authority, the members know that yes, Eve had an important role in the Plan of Salvation, just as any noble daughter of God is important in her role.
In addition to appeals to ethos, Campbell examines word origin to point out differences in meaning from Biblical times. One instance of tracing back word origin is when Campbell incorporates studies of Biblical language. Hebrew scholar Dr. Aschkenasy contrasts meanings of the phrase “help meet” at different times throughout the Bible. First, in Genesis, Eve is referred to as “help meet”. Modern connotation implies she was an aide, subordinate, to Adam. At that time in the scriptures, “help meet” carries different connotations: “to be strong,” “to save,” and “equal.” Campbell then inserts these historically correct connotations into the scripture, revealing textual alterations that have resulted from multiple translations: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a majestic, saving power, equal with him, to be his companion” (274, emphasis added). In this context, the audience sees that Eve’s role in higher and more positive terms. Studies of original Hebrew root words enlighten the audience concerning the thematic emphasis on gender equality.
Campbell examines the origins of certain language again when informing readers that the name “Eve” literally means “mother of all living” (277). Heavenly Father personally bestowed this name and its meaning upon her – a pointed reminder of her divine mission and one way Heavenly Father prepared and guided Eve. Perhaps this was helpful to Eve as she carried out her mission, similar to patriarchal blessings that provide personal direction for members of the church. Word examination is a fresh perspective, one not typically discussed over the pulpit, and intrigues the otherwise religiously educated LDS audience. With the audience paying attention they are more likely to learn the point Campbell is making: Eve’s role was preordained and is necessary to the salvation of mankind.
Another examination of etymology is when Campbell points out the divergent root forms of “command” at different times in the Bible. At the time when Adam and Eve are commanded not to partake of the fruit, the verb “command” is not that same as the verb “command” used in the Ten Commandments. In Genesis “command” indicates a strong but temporary warning. On the other hand, the Ten Commandments are divine law intended for us to obey (276). Previously unaware readers most likely associated “command” with the version used in the Ten Commandments but are now informed on the application in the story of the Fall. This keen examination of etymology gives leniency to Eve’s decision to eat the fruit and portrays her in a better light.
There are logical ways to understand the Fall. There are two ways to think about the Fall, logically with your head and spiritually with your heart. Campbell convinces her LDS audience using both realms of intelligence. She does with rhetorically effective artistic appeals to ethos and descriptions of word origin and connotation. The work serves as a guide to dedicated to an LDS audience effectively serves as a guide to the Fall and shows that the Fall is a necessary par of the Plan of Salvation and that Eve played a righteous and essential role in it
Works cited
Campbell, Beverly. “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor.” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 217-289. Print.
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Writing 150, section100
“Mother Eve”
Because of an Apple: A Critical Analysis
In Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor, Beverly Campbell presents 15 points establishing the role of Eve and conditions of the Fall. She successfully convinces a religiously educated LDS audience that the Fall is an essential step to salvation Eve correctly played her role in that step. Campbell illustrates this by effectively appealing to ethos and utilizing the science of word origin.
Doctrinal complexity concerning the Fall is cleared up with statements from scriptural authorities that appeal to ethos. One example is respected scriptorian Bruce R. McConkie’s explanation of the Fall, in which he pedestals the Fall with the Creation and the Atonement, illustrating that removing any one of these fundamental pillars destroys the worth of our existence. Later, when justifying the Fall, Elder McConkie declares, “They [Adam and Eve] must fall. They must become mortal. Death must enter the world. There is no other way” (275). His argument – the Fall is necessary for existence and salvation of mankind - becomes more powerful because of his standing as an LDS general authority and scripture scholar. While Campbell could outline the doctrine about the vitality of the Fall on her own, her use of authoritative quotes gives a stronger and more convincing backbone. LDS audiences are more likely to listen to a general authority an average church member. Campbell knows this and successfully incorporates appeals to ethos.
Furthering her use of appeals to ethos, Campbell also cites modern day prophets. For example, in the subsection concerning Eve’s role, Campbell uses a statement made by late President of the church Ezra Taft Benson. He declares, “In the beginning, God placed a woman in a companion role with the priesthood… she was to act in partnership with him” (274). He said this in the year after the church issued Official Declaration – 2, a time when women wondered if they were being discriminated against for not getting the priesthood; Campbell uses President Benson’s message to convince that Eve is a partner, an equal, with Adam. She deserves honor rather than a reputation as an evil influence. The general authorities’ messages are specifically effective for an educated LDS audience because prophetic messages are seen as direct revelation from God. Trusting in their priesthood authority, the members know that yes, Eve had an important role in the Plan of Salvation, just as any noble daughter of God is important in her role.
In addition to appeals to ethos, Campbell examines word origin to point out differences in meaning from Biblical times. One instance of tracing back word origin is when Campbell incorporates studies of Biblical language. Hebrew scholar Dr. Aschkenasy contrasts meanings of the phrase “help meet” at different times throughout the Bible. First, in Genesis, Eve is referred to as “help meet”. Modern connotation implies she was an aide, subordinate, to Adam. At that time in the scriptures, “help meet” carries different connotations: “to be strong,” “to save,” and “equal.” Campbell then inserts these historically correct connotations into the scripture, revealing textual alterations that have resulted from multiple translations: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a majestic, saving power, equal with him, to be his companion” (274, emphasis added). In this context, the audience sees that Eve’s role in higher and more positive terms. Studies of original Hebrew root words enlighten the audience concerning the thematic emphasis on gender equality.
Campbell examines the origins of certain language again when informing readers that the name “Eve” literally means “mother of all living” (277). Heavenly Father personally bestowed this name and its meaning upon her – a pointed reminder of her divine mission and one way Heavenly Father prepared and guided Eve. Perhaps this was helpful to Eve as she carried out her mission, similar to patriarchal blessings that provide personal direction for members of the church. Word examination is a fresh perspective, one not typically discussed over the pulpit, and intrigues the otherwise religiously educated LDS audience. With the audience paying attention they are more likely to learn the point Campbell is making: Eve’s role was preordained and is necessary to the salvation of mankind.
Another examination of etymology is when Campbell points out the divergent root forms of “command” at different times in the Bible. At the time when Adam and Eve are commanded not to partake of the fruit, the verb “command” is not that same as the verb “command” used in the Ten Commandments. In Genesis “command” indicates a strong but temporary warning. On the other hand, the Ten Commandments are divine law intended for us to obey (276). Previously unaware readers most likely associated “command” with the version used in the Ten Commandments but are now informed on the application in the story of the Fall. This keen examination of etymology gives leniency to Eve’s decision to eat the fruit and portrays her in a better light.
There are logical ways to understand the Fall. There are two ways to think about the Fall, logically with your head and spiritually with your heart. Campbell convinces her LDS audience using both realms of intelligence. She does with rhetorically effective artistic appeals to ethos and descriptions of word origin and connotation. The work serves as a guide to dedicated to an LDS audience effectively serves as a guide to the Fall and shows that the Fall is a necessary par of the Plan of Salvation and that Eve played a righteous and essential role in it
Works cited
Campbell, Beverly. “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor.” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 217-289. Print.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Kevin's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Kevin Pett
Professor Spencer
Writing 150
11/14/11
Mother Eve: villain or heroine?
Eve, the mother of the whole Earth, has developed a reputation of the one that was deceived by the snake and the reason we are here on Earth instead of in heaven. The weakness of Eve in the Garden of Eden caused man to be superior to woman and so man should rule over women on Earth. Beverly Campbell attempts to correct this misinterpretation of Eve and her role in the Fall. Campbell suggests that instead of Eve being an easily tricked villain, she is instead a hero of the creation story and a perfect role model for women in modern times. Campbell addresses certain questions, uses quotations, and emphasis to convince her LDS audience that Eve was aware of what she was doing and she is in fact a heroine.
Campbell defines fifteen points that the world has misunderstood about the story of the Fall, that when completely understood vindicates Eve from the sin of eating the fruit, and praises her for her action. Campbell makes each of her fifteen points the topic of each of her paragraphs. This allows readers to clearly understand what they are reading and makes it easier to find a point that they are looking for. The topics of each paragraph are written in the form of a question which makes the readers question their own beliefs of Campbell’s points. By giving each one of her points its own paragraph Campbell may even make people ask themselves questions that they have never thought about before. By making the reader question what they believe first the reader is more willing to listen to what Campbell is saying. By asking these fifteen questions Campbell makes the reader question what they believe and then offers an answer that supports Eve’s role in the Creation and the Fall.
These fifteen points would not have been effective if it wasn’t for Campbell’s use of sources. Campbell uses quotations from scriptures, prophets, and specialists on the subject. By using sources with authority readers will be more likely to listen and believe what Campbell is trying to say. Campbell is clearly writing for an LDS audience because of the many prophets and apostles she quotes. If Campbell was attempting to reach out to a broader audience she would have used many diverse religious sources to convince her audience instead of alienating them. By writing for an LDS audience Campbell’s use of quotations from prophets and apostles strongly supports her claims that Eve was a heroine and not a villain and serves her purpose of convincing people to believe that too.
In some of her quotes Campbell adds emphasis to different words, drawing the attention of the reader and being able to expound on a certain point, as in “God, blessed them (emphasis added)” (276). By italicizing the word “them” Campbell draws the reader’s attention to it and then expounds on it. This allows her to utilize the prophet’s words even though that may not have been his original intent. Campbell’s true genius however is when she italicizes her own explanations. By emphasizing her own explanations like she does for quotes from general authorities, Campbell gives the appearance of making her points look like that of a prophet. Once again this adds more weight to her own explanations.
Campbell wrote a convincing essay to the LDS community about the importance of Eve and her divine role in Heavenly Father’s plan. Through her use of organizing the paragraphs, quotations, and emphasis Campbell portrays Eve in the light that she was meant to be in. By clearing up misconceptions about Eve Campbell has created another heroine in the scriptures that is an amazing example for women in the church.
Professor Spencer
Writing 150
11/14/11
Mother Eve: villain or heroine?
Eve, the mother of the whole Earth, has developed a reputation of the one that was deceived by the snake and the reason we are here on Earth instead of in heaven. The weakness of Eve in the Garden of Eden caused man to be superior to woman and so man should rule over women on Earth. Beverly Campbell attempts to correct this misinterpretation of Eve and her role in the Fall. Campbell suggests that instead of Eve being an easily tricked villain, she is instead a hero of the creation story and a perfect role model for women in modern times. Campbell addresses certain questions, uses quotations, and emphasis to convince her LDS audience that Eve was aware of what she was doing and she is in fact a heroine.
Campbell defines fifteen points that the world has misunderstood about the story of the Fall, that when completely understood vindicates Eve from the sin of eating the fruit, and praises her for her action. Campbell makes each of her fifteen points the topic of each of her paragraphs. This allows readers to clearly understand what they are reading and makes it easier to find a point that they are looking for. The topics of each paragraph are written in the form of a question which makes the readers question their own beliefs of Campbell’s points. By giving each one of her points its own paragraph Campbell may even make people ask themselves questions that they have never thought about before. By making the reader question what they believe first the reader is more willing to listen to what Campbell is saying. By asking these fifteen questions Campbell makes the reader question what they believe and then offers an answer that supports Eve’s role in the Creation and the Fall.
These fifteen points would not have been effective if it wasn’t for Campbell’s use of sources. Campbell uses quotations from scriptures, prophets, and specialists on the subject. By using sources with authority readers will be more likely to listen and believe what Campbell is trying to say. Campbell is clearly writing for an LDS audience because of the many prophets and apostles she quotes. If Campbell was attempting to reach out to a broader audience she would have used many diverse religious sources to convince her audience instead of alienating them. By writing for an LDS audience Campbell’s use of quotations from prophets and apostles strongly supports her claims that Eve was a heroine and not a villain and serves her purpose of convincing people to believe that too.
In some of her quotes Campbell adds emphasis to different words, drawing the attention of the reader and being able to expound on a certain point, as in “God, blessed them (emphasis added)” (276). By italicizing the word “them” Campbell draws the reader’s attention to it and then expounds on it. This allows her to utilize the prophet’s words even though that may not have been his original intent. Campbell’s true genius however is when she italicizes her own explanations. By emphasizing her own explanations like she does for quotes from general authorities, Campbell gives the appearance of making her points look like that of a prophet. Once again this adds more weight to her own explanations.
Campbell wrote a convincing essay to the LDS community about the importance of Eve and her divine role in Heavenly Father’s plan. Through her use of organizing the paragraphs, quotations, and emphasis Campbell portrays Eve in the light that she was meant to be in. By clearing up misconceptions about Eve Campbell has created another heroine in the scriptures that is an amazing example for women in the church.
Katie's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Katie Richards
11/14/11
Critical Analysis
“The Real Mother Eve”
In Beverly Campbell’s article, “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor,” Eve’s role in God’s plan is thoroughly questioned, examined, and expounded upon. As the modern Christian paradigm of Eve is often skewed, Campbell thought it her duty to convince LDS readers, especially LDS women, of Mother Eve’s wisdom in partaking of the forbidden fruit. Through the effective use of appeals to all three tools of rhetoric—logos, pathos, and ethos—Campbell changes her audience’s notion of Eve from an ignorant sinner to an honorable servant.
It is difficult to argue with logic, and Beverly Campbell uses this to her advantage in her article. She does this best with her extensive comparisons of the translated words in our scriptures to their original Hebrew. After all, “an examination of the word itself yields an altogether different meaning.” Campbell sheds light on the meanings of many words and phrases commonly identified with Eve and her wickedness or her lack of knowledge. To say that she was “beguiled” really means she had an intense psychological experience; to declare her a “helpmeet” actually makes her a rescuer or savior, equal with Adam; when the Lord vowed that He would “multiply [Eve’s] sorrow and conception,” He really meant that Eve would bring children into the world many times, and that it would not be easy. Informing the audience of these linguistic details does wonders to enlighten their understanding of Mother Eve and her motives. Another logical tactic employed is the allusion to understandable and relatable situations. Examples of orders given to small children to keep them safe help the reader to better comprehend God’s apparently conflicted commandment to Adam and Eve. References to such real-world situations, and their connections to the story of the Fall, are straightforward and make sense. Campbell argues many of her points by appealing to the reader’s intellectual understanding.
As much as we would like to think we are purely logical beings, most humans are most affected and influenced by their emotions. The author successfully appeals to this part of human nature by working on our emotions—in both a positive and a negative fashion. She is especially successful in understanding and speaking to females. She begins with a portrayal the world’s distorted and detrimental view of women, and the possible origins of this view that trace back to Eve. She states that in much of the histories/literature she has found that mention women, there is an “undercurrent of apology, as though there were something not quite ‘all right’ about being a woman.” This immediately puts any woman who has ever been slighted by the world on the author’s terms, and incites empathy and indignation from said woman. Campbell goes as far as to blame all men’s problems on Eve, for “to the unenlightened the phrase ‘Adam fell that men might be’ has come to mean ‘poor dear man had to fall because of Eve’s foolish choice.’” Such a blatant and dramatic expression pricks the feminist fibers in all women. However, as Campbell continues, the reader learns of Eve’s divinity and of God’s love for His precious daughter, and all is made right. The remedy is so powerful because all women, no matter their circumstances, can put themselves into Eve’s place and feel somewhat of the burden and responsibility she carried. This leads to another of Campbell’s emotional devices: placing the reader within the text. By inviting the reader to imagine how it must have felt to watch the great drama of the Fall unfold, or how Satan must have felt when he realized he had triggered the plan of mortality, she allows the reader to explore themselves emotionally. The encouragement of such an emotional journey is a key factor of the effectiveness of this article.
By citing apostles, college professors, and other authoritative figures, Campbell relies heavily on the appeal to ethos to educate and persuade her audience. In one of the many examples of this tool, Campbell quotes Brigham Young in the hopes of convincing readers of the foreordination of the Fall: “The Lord knew that they [Adam and Eve] would do this, and had designed that they should.” Most of the LDS faith are more likely to believe and less likely to challenge the words of the Lord’s apostles and prophets, whether in simple explanations or profound declarations. Along with these quotes, Campbell cites scriptural references to put facts into context or to further back her claims. She also cites professors and colleagues who assisted in the Hebrew translations and other insights. Some may claim that Campbell relies too heavily on the statements of others and not enough on her own opinions; however, the author’s many citations provide informed insights from a number of different sources, and only add credibility to the information she is presenting and the point she is trying to prove. The quotes chosen for the article are clear and relevant, and the reputations of their orators add weight to the article’s message.
After dozens of quotes, a multitude of supporting arguments, and 15 basic points explained, Beverly Campbell did all in her power to elevate Eve’s position in the minds of her readers. Even more noteworthy is the renewed confidence and self-worth she endeavored to instill in every LDS woman. By appealing to the senses of logos, pathos, and ethos, Campbell reminded the world that because of Mother Eve’s divine decision, we are here today and are able to take part in God’s great plan.
11/14/11
Critical Analysis
“The Real Mother Eve”
In Beverly Campbell’s article, “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor,” Eve’s role in God’s plan is thoroughly questioned, examined, and expounded upon. As the modern Christian paradigm of Eve is often skewed, Campbell thought it her duty to convince LDS readers, especially LDS women, of Mother Eve’s wisdom in partaking of the forbidden fruit. Through the effective use of appeals to all three tools of rhetoric—logos, pathos, and ethos—Campbell changes her audience’s notion of Eve from an ignorant sinner to an honorable servant.
It is difficult to argue with logic, and Beverly Campbell uses this to her advantage in her article. She does this best with her extensive comparisons of the translated words in our scriptures to their original Hebrew. After all, “an examination of the word itself yields an altogether different meaning.” Campbell sheds light on the meanings of many words and phrases commonly identified with Eve and her wickedness or her lack of knowledge. To say that she was “beguiled” really means she had an intense psychological experience; to declare her a “helpmeet” actually makes her a rescuer or savior, equal with Adam; when the Lord vowed that He would “multiply [Eve’s] sorrow and conception,” He really meant that Eve would bring children into the world many times, and that it would not be easy. Informing the audience of these linguistic details does wonders to enlighten their understanding of Mother Eve and her motives. Another logical tactic employed is the allusion to understandable and relatable situations. Examples of orders given to small children to keep them safe help the reader to better comprehend God’s apparently conflicted commandment to Adam and Eve. References to such real-world situations, and their connections to the story of the Fall, are straightforward and make sense. Campbell argues many of her points by appealing to the reader’s intellectual understanding.
As much as we would like to think we are purely logical beings, most humans are most affected and influenced by their emotions. The author successfully appeals to this part of human nature by working on our emotions—in both a positive and a negative fashion. She is especially successful in understanding and speaking to females. She begins with a portrayal the world’s distorted and detrimental view of women, and the possible origins of this view that trace back to Eve. She states that in much of the histories/literature she has found that mention women, there is an “undercurrent of apology, as though there were something not quite ‘all right’ about being a woman.” This immediately puts any woman who has ever been slighted by the world on the author’s terms, and incites empathy and indignation from said woman. Campbell goes as far as to blame all men’s problems on Eve, for “to the unenlightened the phrase ‘Adam fell that men might be’ has come to mean ‘poor dear man had to fall because of Eve’s foolish choice.’” Such a blatant and dramatic expression pricks the feminist fibers in all women. However, as Campbell continues, the reader learns of Eve’s divinity and of God’s love for His precious daughter, and all is made right. The remedy is so powerful because all women, no matter their circumstances, can put themselves into Eve’s place and feel somewhat of the burden and responsibility she carried. This leads to another of Campbell’s emotional devices: placing the reader within the text. By inviting the reader to imagine how it must have felt to watch the great drama of the Fall unfold, or how Satan must have felt when he realized he had triggered the plan of mortality, she allows the reader to explore themselves emotionally. The encouragement of such an emotional journey is a key factor of the effectiveness of this article.
By citing apostles, college professors, and other authoritative figures, Campbell relies heavily on the appeal to ethos to educate and persuade her audience. In one of the many examples of this tool, Campbell quotes Brigham Young in the hopes of convincing readers of the foreordination of the Fall: “The Lord knew that they [Adam and Eve] would do this, and had designed that they should.” Most of the LDS faith are more likely to believe and less likely to challenge the words of the Lord’s apostles and prophets, whether in simple explanations or profound declarations. Along with these quotes, Campbell cites scriptural references to put facts into context or to further back her claims. She also cites professors and colleagues who assisted in the Hebrew translations and other insights. Some may claim that Campbell relies too heavily on the statements of others and not enough on her own opinions; however, the author’s many citations provide informed insights from a number of different sources, and only add credibility to the information she is presenting and the point she is trying to prove. The quotes chosen for the article are clear and relevant, and the reputations of their orators add weight to the article’s message.
After dozens of quotes, a multitude of supporting arguments, and 15 basic points explained, Beverly Campbell did all in her power to elevate Eve’s position in the minds of her readers. Even more noteworthy is the renewed confidence and self-worth she endeavored to instill in every LDS woman. By appealing to the senses of logos, pathos, and ethos, Campbell reminded the world that because of Mother Eve’s divine decision, we are here today and are able to take part in God’s great plan.
Emily's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Emily Barnett
11-14-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women
Written By: Beverly Campbell
In society today we see the way that women are treated, many times we see women displayed as objects, or as being “dumb”, other times we see that women are subject to men. How did we get this idea and identity of women stuck in our culture? Why are people’s views so wrong? The answer to this for many can lead all the way back to the time of Adam and Eve. In Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women, Beverly Campbell uses logical appeals, emotional appeals and ethical appeals to effectively argue in the favor that Eve is a role model for Women and should be revered as a Mentor instead of a sinner and a failure as the first mother.
The first instance of a logical appeal in this work is when Campbell defines Eve as a power equal to her counterpart Adam, Campbell uses a logical tool in defining the word “help meet” as “as a savior” the second word means “equal” so thus through defining these words we see that Eve is a majestic saving power equal to that of Adam. Campbell’s argument that they are all the same and that women should be treated with respect because the scriptures state that men and women were made equal, many people do not understand this relationship because they misinterpret the meaning of the meaning of many of the things in the first chapters in Genesis. Eve is not subordinate; she has the same capabilities as Adam to make decisions and to be treated as an equal. Campbell then asks the question if Adam and eve are equal then why are women in general not treated equal as well. With the use of logical appeals Campbell is able to bring this point into perspective with real ideas of what the passage really meant not some interpretation by people in general.
the second instance used in this article is an emotional appeal, Campbell talks about her sister in law and how she had an emotional realization that if Eve was created equal to all men then so are other women, she then goes on to state that many other women will have this same emotion when they find out that Eve is equal. The clarification of this is supposed to show women that they have more worth then society and the world tells them they do because of misunderstanding of their worth. In this section of the work we also see that the main audience of this writing is the female population of the church who often have the feeling of low worth because men have the priesthood and are said to be above women in authority and in intelligence. We see through this argument though that women do not need to feel less then their counterparts because they are just as capable and as strong if not stronger then men.
The third instance we see that Campbell uses many ethical appeals to persuade her audience of the validity of her argument. She uses many references from the scriptures, prophets and other people in history and High leadership positions to prove her point to people about the importance of seeing Mother Eve as a mentor in the lives of women. She references Elder McConkie when she talks about Adam and Eve as equal partners; Adams name was used in the sense to designate the first couple as a unit. As Campbell uses many view point of men and other high standing figures in the Church she is able to more fully persuade her audience of the correctness of her argument and that other people in history have also said the same things she has, through this she shows women that she has authority to say these things and that her argument is as correct as other arguments that have been made.
Through the use of Logical, emotional and ethical appeals Campbell is able to argue that Eve should be seen as a role model to women and that in fact she is not a sinner who should not be followed, but indeed Eve is the mother of all and she should be revered as one of the great righteous people throughout history. Through her argument Campbell is able to effectively make this point in a very valid way that will make many people especially women of the church change their thinking because the thinking that they have now is only bringing society and this church as a whole down but it is as incorrect and misunderstood as it can get!
11-14-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women
Written By: Beverly Campbell
In society today we see the way that women are treated, many times we see women displayed as objects, or as being “dumb”, other times we see that women are subject to men. How did we get this idea and identity of women stuck in our culture? Why are people’s views so wrong? The answer to this for many can lead all the way back to the time of Adam and Eve. In Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women, Beverly Campbell uses logical appeals, emotional appeals and ethical appeals to effectively argue in the favor that Eve is a role model for Women and should be revered as a Mentor instead of a sinner and a failure as the first mother.
The first instance of a logical appeal in this work is when Campbell defines Eve as a power equal to her counterpart Adam, Campbell uses a logical tool in defining the word “help meet” as “as a savior” the second word means “equal” so thus through defining these words we see that Eve is a majestic saving power equal to that of Adam. Campbell’s argument that they are all the same and that women should be treated with respect because the scriptures state that men and women were made equal, many people do not understand this relationship because they misinterpret the meaning of the meaning of many of the things in the first chapters in Genesis. Eve is not subordinate; she has the same capabilities as Adam to make decisions and to be treated as an equal. Campbell then asks the question if Adam and eve are equal then why are women in general not treated equal as well. With the use of logical appeals Campbell is able to bring this point into perspective with real ideas of what the passage really meant not some interpretation by people in general.
the second instance used in this article is an emotional appeal, Campbell talks about her sister in law and how she had an emotional realization that if Eve was created equal to all men then so are other women, she then goes on to state that many other women will have this same emotion when they find out that Eve is equal. The clarification of this is supposed to show women that they have more worth then society and the world tells them they do because of misunderstanding of their worth. In this section of the work we also see that the main audience of this writing is the female population of the church who often have the feeling of low worth because men have the priesthood and are said to be above women in authority and in intelligence. We see through this argument though that women do not need to feel less then their counterparts because they are just as capable and as strong if not stronger then men.
The third instance we see that Campbell uses many ethical appeals to persuade her audience of the validity of her argument. She uses many references from the scriptures, prophets and other people in history and High leadership positions to prove her point to people about the importance of seeing Mother Eve as a mentor in the lives of women. She references Elder McConkie when she talks about Adam and Eve as equal partners; Adams name was used in the sense to designate the first couple as a unit. As Campbell uses many view point of men and other high standing figures in the Church she is able to more fully persuade her audience of the correctness of her argument and that other people in history have also said the same things she has, through this she shows women that she has authority to say these things and that her argument is as correct as other arguments that have been made.
Through the use of Logical, emotional and ethical appeals Campbell is able to argue that Eve should be seen as a role model to women and that in fact she is not a sinner who should not be followed, but indeed Eve is the mother of all and she should be revered as one of the great righteous people throughout history. Through her argument Campbell is able to effectively make this point in a very valid way that will make many people especially women of the church change their thinking because the thinking that they have now is only bringing society and this church as a whole down but it is as incorrect and misunderstood as it can get!
Spencer's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Spencer Diehl
November 9, 2011
Honors Writing 150
“Mother Eve”
If there is one event in the history of mankind that has influenced the role of women in society more than any other, it is the story of Eve. Beverly Campbell, the director of international affairs for the LDS church, attempts to effectively address this controversy which has plagued the social status of women for centuries. By using an efficient organization scheme and using an appeal to ethos by extensively referencing church leaders and scholars, Campbell effectively presents a logical argument that her LDS audience can trust due to its foundation in credible sources.
In the beginning of her paper, Campbell is quick to define the negative image that people have of Eve. Using several examples from her own life and quotations from notable publications, Campbell clearly established the feelings the world has for Eve. For example, Campbell recalls an encounter she had with a couple of BYU students who stated that,” [Eve] really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” By identifying the perception that most have of Eve and her influence on mankind, Campbell effectively addresses her counterargument - a tactic which serves not only to strengthen her own argument, but to make it more meaningful to her audience.
Then, in order to present her argument in an orderly and logical way, Campbell focuses on addressing fifteen misconceptions she has identified that people have of Eve. She uses this approach in order to fully encompass the topic and provide both breadth and depth to her argument. Also, Campbell attempts to address all the fallacies associated with Eve in order to provide a complete understanding of the Mother of Mankind. In Campbell’s own words, “We all know that even the smallest error in the foundation of a building can eventually bring it down. The errors in the understanding of the garden story are not small, and until corrected, ignorance of their presence will continue to be manifest in grossly enlarged consequences to our social fabric.” And Campbell successfully addresses all errors of understanding by dividing her argument into fifteen points.
Within each of these fifteen points, Campbell uses several sources to appeal to the reader’s sense of ethos. The bulk of these sources come from the words of modern day prophets and apostles who have spoken on the matter. In particular, Campbell quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie several times. McConkie, an apostle and church scholar, provides many valuable clarifications to the scriptures that Campbell makes effective use of. For example, when Campbell is arguing that Eve was an active participant in the Plan of Salvation, she makes use of a quote by McConkie which states that:
“Christ and Mary, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and a host of mighty men and equally glorious women comprised that group of ‘the noble and great ones.’ To whom the Lord Jesus said: ‘We will go down, for there is space there, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.’”
By quoting leaders of the church, Campbell presents an argument that forces her LDS readers to either accept her reasoning or to contradict the Lord’s servants – a brutal yet effective technique.
Another source that Campbell uses to appeal to the readers sense of ethos is modern day scripture that are available to her LDS audience. Campbell uses sources such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to provide clarification and understanding. However, the Pearl of Great Price, which gives an account of the creation story, is by far used the most extensively by Campbell. For example, Campbell points out in The Book of Moses that “[God] created he them and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” She uses this clarifying doctrine to point out that both Adam and Eve are often referred together as “Adam” in scriptural accounts. It is cases like this that Campbell uses throughout her paper to more fully convince her audience.
In addition, Campbell appeals to ethos throughout her paper by citing credible historians, scholars, and non-traditional texts. Celebrated scholars such as Hugh Nibley are quoted to add that extra bit of understanding. The Secret Book of John is quoted to provide additional information that most LDS peoples haven’t heard of. And even a fourth century Catholic bishop’s writings are used to prove Campbell’s point. Campbell successfully blends these sources in a way that provides new and interesting insights from credible sources that support her argument.
In addition, Campbell relies heavily throughout her paper on the original Hebrew meaning of many words in our English scriptures. By showing what many words in the scriptures originally meant in Hebrew, the scripture’s original meaning is brought forth and great clarification is provided. For example, our English text states that Eve was beguiled by Satan to partake of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. However, if we use the meaning in Hebrew of the verb beguile (though there is no exact translation), we are brought to understand that “Eve was motivated by a complex set of inner drives, anchored not only in her physical but also in her intellectual and spiritual nature.”
Clarifications such as this dramatically change the text’s meaning, and Campbell uses this to her advantage within her paper.
It is these exceptional uses of credible sources and an effective organizational
pattern that makes Campbell’s argument in its appeal to ethos successful in convincing its LDS audience. This argument effectively counters the fallacies surrounding the story of mother Eve – a story that has influenced greatly the role and position of women in society throughout history.
November 9, 2011
Honors Writing 150
“Mother Eve”
If there is one event in the history of mankind that has influenced the role of women in society more than any other, it is the story of Eve. Beverly Campbell, the director of international affairs for the LDS church, attempts to effectively address this controversy which has plagued the social status of women for centuries. By using an efficient organization scheme and using an appeal to ethos by extensively referencing church leaders and scholars, Campbell effectively presents a logical argument that her LDS audience can trust due to its foundation in credible sources.
In the beginning of her paper, Campbell is quick to define the negative image that people have of Eve. Using several examples from her own life and quotations from notable publications, Campbell clearly established the feelings the world has for Eve. For example, Campbell recalls an encounter she had with a couple of BYU students who stated that,” [Eve] really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” By identifying the perception that most have of Eve and her influence on mankind, Campbell effectively addresses her counterargument - a tactic which serves not only to strengthen her own argument, but to make it more meaningful to her audience.
Then, in order to present her argument in an orderly and logical way, Campbell focuses on addressing fifteen misconceptions she has identified that people have of Eve. She uses this approach in order to fully encompass the topic and provide both breadth and depth to her argument. Also, Campbell attempts to address all the fallacies associated with Eve in order to provide a complete understanding of the Mother of Mankind. In Campbell’s own words, “We all know that even the smallest error in the foundation of a building can eventually bring it down. The errors in the understanding of the garden story are not small, and until corrected, ignorance of their presence will continue to be manifest in grossly enlarged consequences to our social fabric.” And Campbell successfully addresses all errors of understanding by dividing her argument into fifteen points.
Within each of these fifteen points, Campbell uses several sources to appeal to the reader’s sense of ethos. The bulk of these sources come from the words of modern day prophets and apostles who have spoken on the matter. In particular, Campbell quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie several times. McConkie, an apostle and church scholar, provides many valuable clarifications to the scriptures that Campbell makes effective use of. For example, when Campbell is arguing that Eve was an active participant in the Plan of Salvation, she makes use of a quote by McConkie which states that:
“Christ and Mary, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and a host of mighty men and equally glorious women comprised that group of ‘the noble and great ones.’ To whom the Lord Jesus said: ‘We will go down, for there is space there, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.’”
By quoting leaders of the church, Campbell presents an argument that forces her LDS readers to either accept her reasoning or to contradict the Lord’s servants – a brutal yet effective technique.
Another source that Campbell uses to appeal to the readers sense of ethos is modern day scripture that are available to her LDS audience. Campbell uses sources such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to provide clarification and understanding. However, the Pearl of Great Price, which gives an account of the creation story, is by far used the most extensively by Campbell. For example, Campbell points out in The Book of Moses that “[God] created he them and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” She uses this clarifying doctrine to point out that both Adam and Eve are often referred together as “Adam” in scriptural accounts. It is cases like this that Campbell uses throughout her paper to more fully convince her audience.
In addition, Campbell appeals to ethos throughout her paper by citing credible historians, scholars, and non-traditional texts. Celebrated scholars such as Hugh Nibley are quoted to add that extra bit of understanding. The Secret Book of John is quoted to provide additional information that most LDS peoples haven’t heard of. And even a fourth century Catholic bishop’s writings are used to prove Campbell’s point. Campbell successfully blends these sources in a way that provides new and interesting insights from credible sources that support her argument.
In addition, Campbell relies heavily throughout her paper on the original Hebrew meaning of many words in our English scriptures. By showing what many words in the scriptures originally meant in Hebrew, the scripture’s original meaning is brought forth and great clarification is provided. For example, our English text states that Eve was beguiled by Satan to partake of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. However, if we use the meaning in Hebrew of the verb beguile (though there is no exact translation), we are brought to understand that “Eve was motivated by a complex set of inner drives, anchored not only in her physical but also in her intellectual and spiritual nature.”
Clarifications such as this dramatically change the text’s meaning, and Campbell uses this to her advantage within her paper.
It is these exceptional uses of credible sources and an effective organizational
pattern that makes Campbell’s argument in its appeal to ethos successful in convincing its LDS audience. This argument effectively counters the fallacies surrounding the story of mother Eve – a story that has influenced greatly the role and position of women in society throughout history.
Renee's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Eve: Mentor for Today's Women
Eve, the first mother, has been scourged, blamed, and belittled for centuries. She has been held up as the quintessential weak-willed woman because she opened a Pandora’s Box of sin and woe with a bite of an apple. Many of those within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are familiar with the images of Eve contemplating a large, devil-red apple as a serpent slithers slyly nearby and the connotations that are associated with them. It is important, however, to consider whether or not the common conception of Eve is accurate. In the article Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman, Beverly Campbell effectively uses an appeal to ethos through quotes from religious texts, leaders, and scholars to reclaim Eve’s place as a positive figure within the doctrine of the LDS church.
Campbell refers to Eve’s own words in the Book of Moses to scripturally back Eve’s role in God’s eternal plan. She quotes Moses 5:10, in which Eve says, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” These are not the words of one who is suffering under a curse, or of one who is regretting the loss of the bounteous Garden of Eden. Instead, these are words of gratitude from a woman who has gained an eternal perspective and an intimate understanding of the Plan of Salvation. By using this quote, Campbell effectively appeals to ethos through the authority of the religious text. This aspect of ethos coupled with the logos of the quote make this an effective quote.
Secondly, a quote from the canon works of scripture bolsters Campbell’s arguments, although this time on the role of Satan in the Fall. The quote used is Moses 4:6, which reads, “And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” It is important to note that Satan was unaware of God’s plan. He sought to destroy the world by convincing Eve to partake of the fruit, but instead he helped bring to pass one of the most important steps in God’s plan for man on Earth. This authoritative scriptural explanation of Satan’s role as an ignorant catalyst to an important part of God’s plan effectively helps refute the idea that Eve was a woman easily convinced to sin; it paints a picture of a woman who had an intelligent understanding of the Lord’s plan.
By discussing a scripture that Campbell knows that her audience would recognize, she brings the argument closer to home. LDS members who have completed seminary are familiar with 2 Nephi 2:25. Many can still rattle off the words, “Adam fell that man might be and men are that they might have joy.” The importance of this scripture is that it simply explains the positive and necessary consequences of the Fall. In order to convey an accurate picture of the eternal importance of the Fall through an effective appeal to authority, Campbell helps her audience see the wisdom in Eve’s decision to eat the fruit.
Campbell also quotes many modern-day leaders of the LDS church, such as John A. Widtsoe, a late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From him, Campbell takes the quote, “It is a thrilling thought that Adam and Eve were not coerced to begin God’s work on earth.” This quote emphasizes the tie between the Fall and the incredibly familiar doctrine of agency. This quote conveys the importance of God offering Adam and Eve a choice in the matter in order to preserve the agency of his children. Since this quote comes from an Apostle, whom members of the LDS church believe to be a prophet, it carries a similar authority to that of ancient scripture.
The essay also includes an authoritative quote about Eve from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which reads, “She should be praised for her decision.” This quote is important not only because it is a positive portrayal of the role of Eve by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but also that it is an authoritative assertion that her decision to eat of the fruit was praiseworthy. The inclusion of this quote adds an effective appeal to ethos to Campbell’s argument.
In this essay, Campbell also calls upon the authority of scholars to support her arguments, such as Hebrew Scholar Dr. Nehama Aschkenasy. Campbell was curious about the original Hebrew verb form of the word “command” used in the creation stories, and asked Dr. Aschkenasy to investigate for her. In doing so, Campbell appeals not only to the authority that Dr. Aschkenasy has as a Hebrew scholar, but also to the authority of the original Hebrew text of the scripture. The appeal to the original Hebrew text is particularly important in regards to the LDS belief that, through improper translation, many important biblical truths have been lost. Therefore, the Hebrew text holds more authority than the English text for it less polluted by translation, and hence a more effective appeal to ethos.
The article effectively elevates Eve to a level of respect and dignity through the use of ethos. The use of this rhetorical device is particularly important with LDS audiences. Campbell’s appeals to religious authorities such as scripture, modern day prophets and religious scholars help to bolster the idea that a positive portrayal of Eve is not a fringe belief, but authority figures throughout the ages support it. This assertion makes it very difficult for any LDS member with a testimony that Apostles are prophets, and in the LDS scriptural cannon to disagree with Campbell’s arguments.
Eve, the first mother, has been scourged, blamed, and belittled for centuries. She has been held up as the quintessential weak-willed woman because she opened a Pandora’s Box of sin and woe with a bite of an apple. Many of those within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are familiar with the images of Eve contemplating a large, devil-red apple as a serpent slithers slyly nearby and the connotations that are associated with them. It is important, however, to consider whether or not the common conception of Eve is accurate. In the article Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman, Beverly Campbell effectively uses an appeal to ethos through quotes from religious texts, leaders, and scholars to reclaim Eve’s place as a positive figure within the doctrine of the LDS church.
Campbell refers to Eve’s own words in the Book of Moses to scripturally back Eve’s role in God’s eternal plan. She quotes Moses 5:10, in which Eve says, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” These are not the words of one who is suffering under a curse, or of one who is regretting the loss of the bounteous Garden of Eden. Instead, these are words of gratitude from a woman who has gained an eternal perspective and an intimate understanding of the Plan of Salvation. By using this quote, Campbell effectively appeals to ethos through the authority of the religious text. This aspect of ethos coupled with the logos of the quote make this an effective quote.
Secondly, a quote from the canon works of scripture bolsters Campbell’s arguments, although this time on the role of Satan in the Fall. The quote used is Moses 4:6, which reads, “And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” It is important to note that Satan was unaware of God’s plan. He sought to destroy the world by convincing Eve to partake of the fruit, but instead he helped bring to pass one of the most important steps in God’s plan for man on Earth. This authoritative scriptural explanation of Satan’s role as an ignorant catalyst to an important part of God’s plan effectively helps refute the idea that Eve was a woman easily convinced to sin; it paints a picture of a woman who had an intelligent understanding of the Lord’s plan.
By discussing a scripture that Campbell knows that her audience would recognize, she brings the argument closer to home. LDS members who have completed seminary are familiar with 2 Nephi 2:25. Many can still rattle off the words, “Adam fell that man might be and men are that they might have joy.” The importance of this scripture is that it simply explains the positive and necessary consequences of the Fall. In order to convey an accurate picture of the eternal importance of the Fall through an effective appeal to authority, Campbell helps her audience see the wisdom in Eve’s decision to eat the fruit.
Campbell also quotes many modern-day leaders of the LDS church, such as John A. Widtsoe, a late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From him, Campbell takes the quote, “It is a thrilling thought that Adam and Eve were not coerced to begin God’s work on earth.” This quote emphasizes the tie between the Fall and the incredibly familiar doctrine of agency. This quote conveys the importance of God offering Adam and Eve a choice in the matter in order to preserve the agency of his children. Since this quote comes from an Apostle, whom members of the LDS church believe to be a prophet, it carries a similar authority to that of ancient scripture.
The essay also includes an authoritative quote about Eve from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which reads, “She should be praised for her decision.” This quote is important not only because it is a positive portrayal of the role of Eve by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but also that it is an authoritative assertion that her decision to eat of the fruit was praiseworthy. The inclusion of this quote adds an effective appeal to ethos to Campbell’s argument.
In this essay, Campbell also calls upon the authority of scholars to support her arguments, such as Hebrew Scholar Dr. Nehama Aschkenasy. Campbell was curious about the original Hebrew verb form of the word “command” used in the creation stories, and asked Dr. Aschkenasy to investigate for her. In doing so, Campbell appeals not only to the authority that Dr. Aschkenasy has as a Hebrew scholar, but also to the authority of the original Hebrew text of the scripture. The appeal to the original Hebrew text is particularly important in regards to the LDS belief that, through improper translation, many important biblical truths have been lost. Therefore, the Hebrew text holds more authority than the English text for it less polluted by translation, and hence a more effective appeal to ethos.
The article effectively elevates Eve to a level of respect and dignity through the use of ethos. The use of this rhetorical device is particularly important with LDS audiences. Campbell’s appeals to religious authorities such as scripture, modern day prophets and religious scholars help to bolster the idea that a positive portrayal of Eve is not a fringe belief, but authority figures throughout the ages support it. This assertion makes it very difficult for any LDS member with a testimony that Apostles are prophets, and in the LDS scriptural cannon to disagree with Campbell’s arguments.
Erica's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Erica Allred
Kerry Spencer
Honors Writing 150
Nov 10, 2011
Eve: A Blessing to Mankind
Jane Austen, in her book Pride and Prejudice, posed the question “What are men compared to rocks and mountains?” I am not qualified to answer that question, however I can state that men are equal in glory and status to all the women who have, and will ever occupy this earth. Beverly Campbell in her essay Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor addresses the controversy and concerns that revolve around Eve, the mother of the human race. Through the use of appeals to pathos, and through the words of prophets and apostle, both ancient and modern, Campbell effectively argues the case in favor of Mother Eve to members of the LDS Faith.
One instance of Campbell’s appeal to pathos is her story of her encounter with two male artists from BYU. For a chalk art contest these two boys had decided to draw Eve in a negative light. When she questioned them about the story all they could say was “She really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” (273) This quote leads up to her fifteen main points and arguments concerning the importance of Eve. Campbell uses this story to inflict guilt in her audience. The boys in the story represent how ignorance and misunderstanding have influenced the world’s view of our Mother Eve. How many of us have also judged Eve too harshly? This story helps to influence the audience to react more sympathetically towards Eve.
Another instance of appeals to pathos used by Campbell is the story she tells about her sister’s reaction to the true meaning of help meet. Campbell explains that the definition in The Oxford English Dictionary means “even or equal to.” (274) When she shared this with her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law responded to what she had said in a letter.
I am very excited about what you have found, especially the meaning of the word helpmeet and the implications it gives to eve’s position. I sat frozen, actually feeling the blood drain from my face, awed, with a joyous feeling I will never forget, but crying at the same time! I wondered why I should feel all this emotion. Suddenly, this thought came to my mind clearly: “It’s true I am who I always thought I was!” (274-275)
Her sister-in-law was overcome with emotion as Campbell revealed the true purpose of women to her. Such emotion resonates with many women when they come to understand their purpose in the Plan of Salvation. It is inspiring to know women were intended from the beginning to be equal partners with men in this life. By connecting with her audience on an emotional level, Campbell is effectively convincing her audience of the importance of Eve and of all women.
Adam’s and Eve’s missions in life were to jump start mortality. The fall is one of the most important and significant aspects of the plan of salvation, along with the Creation and the Atonement. Campbell uses the words and authority of the prophets and apostles of modern and ancient times to emphasize the importance of Eve’s role. One instance of this is Campbell’s use of Joseph Fielding Smith’s quote “Adam and Eve did the very thing the Lord intended them to do. If we had the original record we would see the purpose of the Fall clearly stated and it’s necessity explained.” (275) Campbell uses this quote as evidence and authority to support her claim that the Fall was preordained and necessary. As a Prophet of the LDS church, Smith’s words hold authority for members. By using quotes from prophets such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Campbell causes her audience to consider what she is saying with more care knowing that the words of the prophets support her claims.
Another instance of Campbell’s use of the words of the prophets and apostles is her quotation of Moses 5:10-11.
And in that day Adam blessed God… saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgressions me eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy….
And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Campbell uses this quote in her section entitled What Emotions Did Adam and Eve Feel as They Recognized Their Mortality? These verses portray Adam’s and Eve’s happiness and joy that stem from mortality. This quote is designed to help the audience realized the blessing and gift that is mortality. Through Adam’s and Eve’s transgression we have been granted the chance to live on this earth. Mortality is not a bad thing. In helping the audience to realize this, Campbell is promoting positive connotations with Eve’s transgression.
Lastly, Campbell uses revered apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s powerful statement about Eve.
There is not language that can do credit to our glorious mother, Eve. Eve- a daughter of God, one of the spirit off-spring of the Almighty Elohim- was among the noble and great in [premortal] existence. She ranked in spiritual stature, in faith and devotion, in conformity to eternal law with Michael [emphasis added]. (273)
Campbell uses this quote to “summarize Eve’s contributions as they relate to the past and present.” (273) This is a significant statement about the status of earthly Mother of our race. As stated, McConkie is a highly revered Apostle. Besides the prophets, he is one of the most quoted persons in the history of the church. His standing among church members requires the highest regard to his words. Campbell’s masterful use of McConkie’s words seals her arguments in stone for church members. If he saw Eve in such a wonderful light, then it should give pause to those in the church who do not.
Eve, the wife and partner of Adam, the earthly mother of our race, and a revered child of our Heavenly Father is an heir to the same glory and status as our brother Michael. Prophets have revered her. We should embrace her, and all other women for the miracles and blessings they are to this world. Campbell’s emotional connections and insights of the prophets, promote a love towards Eve and her posterity. We praise Eve for her wisdom and her choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, for if she had not, we would not exist on this earth today. The entire Plan of Salvation would have frustrated. Respect her. Love her. Praise her. Eve: our sister.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. (1996). Pride and prejudice. Modern Library.
Campbell, B. (2007). Mother eve, mentor for toda'ys woman: A heritage of honor. In Susan Jorgenson (Ed.), Readins for Intensive Writers (pp. 271-289). Provo: BYU Academic Publishing.
Kerry Spencer
Honors Writing 150
Nov 10, 2011
Eve: A Blessing to Mankind
Jane Austen, in her book Pride and Prejudice, posed the question “What are men compared to rocks and mountains?” I am not qualified to answer that question, however I can state that men are equal in glory and status to all the women who have, and will ever occupy this earth. Beverly Campbell in her essay Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor addresses the controversy and concerns that revolve around Eve, the mother of the human race. Through the use of appeals to pathos, and through the words of prophets and apostle, both ancient and modern, Campbell effectively argues the case in favor of Mother Eve to members of the LDS Faith.
One instance of Campbell’s appeal to pathos is her story of her encounter with two male artists from BYU. For a chalk art contest these two boys had decided to draw Eve in a negative light. When she questioned them about the story all they could say was “She really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” (273) This quote leads up to her fifteen main points and arguments concerning the importance of Eve. Campbell uses this story to inflict guilt in her audience. The boys in the story represent how ignorance and misunderstanding have influenced the world’s view of our Mother Eve. How many of us have also judged Eve too harshly? This story helps to influence the audience to react more sympathetically towards Eve.
Another instance of appeals to pathos used by Campbell is the story she tells about her sister’s reaction to the true meaning of help meet. Campbell explains that the definition in The Oxford English Dictionary means “even or equal to.” (274) When she shared this with her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law responded to what she had said in a letter.
I am very excited about what you have found, especially the meaning of the word helpmeet and the implications it gives to eve’s position. I sat frozen, actually feeling the blood drain from my face, awed, with a joyous feeling I will never forget, but crying at the same time! I wondered why I should feel all this emotion. Suddenly, this thought came to my mind clearly: “It’s true I am who I always thought I was!” (274-275)
Her sister-in-law was overcome with emotion as Campbell revealed the true purpose of women to her. Such emotion resonates with many women when they come to understand their purpose in the Plan of Salvation. It is inspiring to know women were intended from the beginning to be equal partners with men in this life. By connecting with her audience on an emotional level, Campbell is effectively convincing her audience of the importance of Eve and of all women.
Adam’s and Eve’s missions in life were to jump start mortality. The fall is one of the most important and significant aspects of the plan of salvation, along with the Creation and the Atonement. Campbell uses the words and authority of the prophets and apostles of modern and ancient times to emphasize the importance of Eve’s role. One instance of this is Campbell’s use of Joseph Fielding Smith’s quote “Adam and Eve did the very thing the Lord intended them to do. If we had the original record we would see the purpose of the Fall clearly stated and it’s necessity explained.” (275) Campbell uses this quote as evidence and authority to support her claim that the Fall was preordained and necessary. As a Prophet of the LDS church, Smith’s words hold authority for members. By using quotes from prophets such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Campbell causes her audience to consider what she is saying with more care knowing that the words of the prophets support her claims.
Another instance of Campbell’s use of the words of the prophets and apostles is her quotation of Moses 5:10-11.
And in that day Adam blessed God… saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgressions me eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy….
And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Campbell uses this quote in her section entitled What Emotions Did Adam and Eve Feel as They Recognized Their Mortality? These verses portray Adam’s and Eve’s happiness and joy that stem from mortality. This quote is designed to help the audience realized the blessing and gift that is mortality. Through Adam’s and Eve’s transgression we have been granted the chance to live on this earth. Mortality is not a bad thing. In helping the audience to realize this, Campbell is promoting positive connotations with Eve’s transgression.
Lastly, Campbell uses revered apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s powerful statement about Eve.
There is not language that can do credit to our glorious mother, Eve. Eve- a daughter of God, one of the spirit off-spring of the Almighty Elohim- was among the noble and great in [premortal] existence. She ranked in spiritual stature, in faith and devotion, in conformity to eternal law with Michael [emphasis added]. (273)
Campbell uses this quote to “summarize Eve’s contributions as they relate to the past and present.” (273) This is a significant statement about the status of earthly Mother of our race. As stated, McConkie is a highly revered Apostle. Besides the prophets, he is one of the most quoted persons in the history of the church. His standing among church members requires the highest regard to his words. Campbell’s masterful use of McConkie’s words seals her arguments in stone for church members. If he saw Eve in such a wonderful light, then it should give pause to those in the church who do not.
Eve, the wife and partner of Adam, the earthly mother of our race, and a revered child of our Heavenly Father is an heir to the same glory and status as our brother Michael. Prophets have revered her. We should embrace her, and all other women for the miracles and blessings they are to this world. Campbell’s emotional connections and insights of the prophets, promote a love towards Eve and her posterity. We praise Eve for her wisdom and her choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, for if she had not, we would not exist on this earth today. The entire Plan of Salvation would have frustrated. Respect her. Love her. Praise her. Eve: our sister.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. (1996). Pride and prejudice. Modern Library.
Campbell, B. (2007). Mother eve, mentor for toda'ys woman: A heritage of honor. In Susan Jorgenson (Ed.), Readins for Intensive Writers (pp. 271-289). Provo: BYU Academic Publishing.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Mariah's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Mariah Smith
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Critical Analysis
November 7, 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: Charity vs. Survival
Life is a cruise ship...or at least it is until the engine blows up and the oasis of luxury sinks. You are among the lucky ones in one of its few life rafts, surrounded by hundreds of others who are left treading water in the ocean. They beg to be allowed aboard, but you know you neither have the space nor supplies to do so without harming yourself. Time passes and you observe some of the passengers begin to drown and get eaten by sharks who have clearly discovered a buffet. You are more grateful than ever to be in your life boat, thinking philosophical thoughts, and eventually the question comes up: “Does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share in its resources?” (308) This is the question Garrett Hardin uses to introduce his essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor. Using the metaphor of the earth being a lifeboat while appealing to logos, pathos and ethos in his audience, he answers this question.
The dominating metaphor of Hardin’s essay is one comparing the condition of wealthy nations to that of a lifeboat. He begins by kindly acknowledging environmentalists’ efforts to fit the world into a spaceship metaphor where there are limited, nonrenewable resources and as such need to be carefully and equally rationed. Then he turns around and attacks the metaphor, asserting that the human race is not in a spaceship scenario. His primary arguments are that a spaceship is a single member ruled by an individual, and that spaceships do not struggle with a constant influx of needy immigrants, as outer space is a dark void, and life simply can not and does not exist in such a void. Hardin uncovers the lifeboat metaphor. “If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth...” (308) Aware of his educated audience, Hardin draws upon statistics and facts to supplement his lifeboat metaphor and thus strengthen his point. He points out that wealthy nations double in population approximately every 87 years, while the less affluent nations double near every 35 years. This appeal to logos through population contrast prompts readers to come to a realization that poor countries, already suffering from insufficient resources, are completely unable to support their expanding populations and will most likely remain in such a condition forever.
...Unless they receive some kind of aid. Enter the international food bank. Hardin hates the food bank and wants his audience to feel the same way, so he pulls another statistic: “Between 1960 to 1970, U.S. taxpayers spent a total of $7.9 billion on the Food for Peace program.” (311) His audience members may shrug to themselves about this, since after all, the United States government runs the program and it has to get its money from somewhere. And at least the tax money is going to a good cause...so they think until Hardin pulls that rug from underneath their feet with a statement which implies that much of that money is actually lining the pockets of special interest groups involved in the program. Pathos is awake. The audience has been roused from their stupor of ignorance, is indignant, and primed for persuasion.
For the final push, Hardin employs an appeal to ethos through a reference to a well-known story from a well-trusted source: the story of Joseph of Egypt from the Holy Bible. Joseph was placed in charge of a country which faced first a wonderful seven years of unprecedented bounty before it would plunge into seven years of most desperate famine. Storehouses were erected to insure Egypt’s survival during the famine through reliance on stored surplus from the period of plenty and Egypt did survive, continuing to be a mighty nation. “A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years to come,” (312) states Hardin. He uses this example to soothe his readers’ natural fears and concerns for the welfare of those in poorer nations if aid were to be withdrawn. “They can learn from experience.” (312) And Hardin has made a valid point. Many nations of old such as Greece and Rome survived and thrived without aid though either their own experience or the experiences of other nations.
The question is answered and the reader has been reconciled to at least an understanding of author Garrett Hardin’s perspective. They have been bent gradually and perhaps not-so-gently by a barrage of strong metaphor and appeals to logos, pathos and ethos. Feeding the poor, they realize, is well-meant, but if it is continued in the way that it is it could very well be laying the framework for the demise of the human race. So the answer to the original question is no: “For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.” (316)
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Critical Analysis
November 7, 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: Charity vs. Survival
Life is a cruise ship...or at least it is until the engine blows up and the oasis of luxury sinks. You are among the lucky ones in one of its few life rafts, surrounded by hundreds of others who are left treading water in the ocean. They beg to be allowed aboard, but you know you neither have the space nor supplies to do so without harming yourself. Time passes and you observe some of the passengers begin to drown and get eaten by sharks who have clearly discovered a buffet. You are more grateful than ever to be in your life boat, thinking philosophical thoughts, and eventually the question comes up: “Does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share in its resources?” (308) This is the question Garrett Hardin uses to introduce his essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor. Using the metaphor of the earth being a lifeboat while appealing to logos, pathos and ethos in his audience, he answers this question.
The dominating metaphor of Hardin’s essay is one comparing the condition of wealthy nations to that of a lifeboat. He begins by kindly acknowledging environmentalists’ efforts to fit the world into a spaceship metaphor where there are limited, nonrenewable resources and as such need to be carefully and equally rationed. Then he turns around and attacks the metaphor, asserting that the human race is not in a spaceship scenario. His primary arguments are that a spaceship is a single member ruled by an individual, and that spaceships do not struggle with a constant influx of needy immigrants, as outer space is a dark void, and life simply can not and does not exist in such a void. Hardin uncovers the lifeboat metaphor. “If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth...” (308) Aware of his educated audience, Hardin draws upon statistics and facts to supplement his lifeboat metaphor and thus strengthen his point. He points out that wealthy nations double in population approximately every 87 years, while the less affluent nations double near every 35 years. This appeal to logos through population contrast prompts readers to come to a realization that poor countries, already suffering from insufficient resources, are completely unable to support their expanding populations and will most likely remain in such a condition forever.
...Unless they receive some kind of aid. Enter the international food bank. Hardin hates the food bank and wants his audience to feel the same way, so he pulls another statistic: “Between 1960 to 1970, U.S. taxpayers spent a total of $7.9 billion on the Food for Peace program.” (311) His audience members may shrug to themselves about this, since after all, the United States government runs the program and it has to get its money from somewhere. And at least the tax money is going to a good cause...so they think until Hardin pulls that rug from underneath their feet with a statement which implies that much of that money is actually lining the pockets of special interest groups involved in the program. Pathos is awake. The audience has been roused from their stupor of ignorance, is indignant, and primed for persuasion.
For the final push, Hardin employs an appeal to ethos through a reference to a well-known story from a well-trusted source: the story of Joseph of Egypt from the Holy Bible. Joseph was placed in charge of a country which faced first a wonderful seven years of unprecedented bounty before it would plunge into seven years of most desperate famine. Storehouses were erected to insure Egypt’s survival during the famine through reliance on stored surplus from the period of plenty and Egypt did survive, continuing to be a mighty nation. “A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years to come,” (312) states Hardin. He uses this example to soothe his readers’ natural fears and concerns for the welfare of those in poorer nations if aid were to be withdrawn. “They can learn from experience.” (312) And Hardin has made a valid point. Many nations of old such as Greece and Rome survived and thrived without aid though either their own experience or the experiences of other nations.
The question is answered and the reader has been reconciled to at least an understanding of author Garrett Hardin’s perspective. They have been bent gradually and perhaps not-so-gently by a barrage of strong metaphor and appeals to logos, pathos and ethos. Feeding the poor, they realize, is well-meant, but if it is continued in the way that it is it could very well be laying the framework for the demise of the human race. So the answer to the original question is no: “For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.” (316)
Seth's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Seth Taylor
Prof. Spencer
HNRS Writing 150
7 November 2011
The Paddle
The current of ethics and morality creates a river of life that can capsize the conscience at any given moment, and to sift through these waters proves to be an egregious task. It is not very difficult to choose a side when discussing ethics and morality; the problem arises when one must establish the reasoning behind choosing a side. In his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin effectively establishes his reasoning on the ethics behind not helping impoverished nations to a general audience through his appeal to logos, personal anecdote, and extended metaphor.
Hardin's appeal to logos is scattered throughout the essay; However, he ties his logical argument together in his last paragraph when he says, “For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less” (Hardin 316). This is an appeal to logos, because he is trying to get his general audience to logically consider what they have to do to ensure future generations. He bases his entire argument on our duty to our posterity, to give them a world similar or better to that in which we live in. Hardin delivers hard statistics of growing populations in impoverished nations to show how, logically, we need to focus on pursuing our own national goals of maintaining a bright future, rather than allowing poorer nations to siphon resources from us, no matter how humanitarian it seems.
In addition to an appeal to logos, Hardin uses personal anecdote to back his reasoning further. When speaking of an experience in Hawaii, Hardin reflects:
“I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker, who like most of his audience was of Japanese ancestry, ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration. One member of the audience countered 'How can we shut the doors now? We have many friends and relatives in Japan that we'd like to bring here some day […].' The Japanese-American speaker smiled sympathetically and answered: 'Yes, but we have children now, and someday we'll have grandchildren too. We can bring more people here from Japan only by giving away some of the land that we hope to pass on to our grandchildren some day. What right do we have to do that?'” (Hardin 315)
This anecdote backs Hardin's appeal to logos with the inclusion of sustaining a land for future generations. How is it more ethical to help impoverished nations, than to provide substance for your children or grandchildren? Hardin argues that it isn't. He shares this anecdote to emphasize to his general audience that sometimes people have to make a hard decision, to prevent harder decisions in the future. He argues that we must cherish our position being inside the lifeboat, rather than the swimmers begging for a way in.
The lifeboat is the extended metaphor Hardin uses throughout the essay. He says, “Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible, although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties” (Hardin 309). The extended metaphor effectively backs Hardin's reasoning, through its ability to show his general audience that they are the ones in the lifeboat. No one in an impoverished nation is going to be reading this essay; therefore, by his audience being the passengers of the lifeboat, his argument becomes incredibly more effective. Once the metaphor is established and understood, he can present his argument: helping impoverished nations hinder our ability to ensure future stability. Hardin continually refers to the extended metaphor to periodically remind his general audience of their current circumstance; that he's on their side whether they believe they are on that side or not.
The current of ethics and morality continually push and pull from one side to the other; However, with ease Hardin effectively provides a paddle of logic, anecdote and metaphor to guide his general audience to his embankment.
Prof. Spencer
HNRS Writing 150
7 November 2011
The Paddle
The current of ethics and morality creates a river of life that can capsize the conscience at any given moment, and to sift through these waters proves to be an egregious task. It is not very difficult to choose a side when discussing ethics and morality; the problem arises when one must establish the reasoning behind choosing a side. In his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin effectively establishes his reasoning on the ethics behind not helping impoverished nations to a general audience through his appeal to logos, personal anecdote, and extended metaphor.
Hardin's appeal to logos is scattered throughout the essay; However, he ties his logical argument together in his last paragraph when he says, “For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less” (Hardin 316). This is an appeal to logos, because he is trying to get his general audience to logically consider what they have to do to ensure future generations. He bases his entire argument on our duty to our posterity, to give them a world similar or better to that in which we live in. Hardin delivers hard statistics of growing populations in impoverished nations to show how, logically, we need to focus on pursuing our own national goals of maintaining a bright future, rather than allowing poorer nations to siphon resources from us, no matter how humanitarian it seems.
In addition to an appeal to logos, Hardin uses personal anecdote to back his reasoning further. When speaking of an experience in Hawaii, Hardin reflects:
“I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker, who like most of his audience was of Japanese ancestry, ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration. One member of the audience countered 'How can we shut the doors now? We have many friends and relatives in Japan that we'd like to bring here some day […].' The Japanese-American speaker smiled sympathetically and answered: 'Yes, but we have children now, and someday we'll have grandchildren too. We can bring more people here from Japan only by giving away some of the land that we hope to pass on to our grandchildren some day. What right do we have to do that?'” (Hardin 315)
This anecdote backs Hardin's appeal to logos with the inclusion of sustaining a land for future generations. How is it more ethical to help impoverished nations, than to provide substance for your children or grandchildren? Hardin argues that it isn't. He shares this anecdote to emphasize to his general audience that sometimes people have to make a hard decision, to prevent harder decisions in the future. He argues that we must cherish our position being inside the lifeboat, rather than the swimmers begging for a way in.
The lifeboat is the extended metaphor Hardin uses throughout the essay. He says, “Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible, although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties” (Hardin 309). The extended metaphor effectively backs Hardin's reasoning, through its ability to show his general audience that they are the ones in the lifeboat. No one in an impoverished nation is going to be reading this essay; therefore, by his audience being the passengers of the lifeboat, his argument becomes incredibly more effective. Once the metaphor is established and understood, he can present his argument: helping impoverished nations hinder our ability to ensure future stability. Hardin continually refers to the extended metaphor to periodically remind his general audience of their current circumstance; that he's on their side whether they believe they are on that side or not.
The current of ethics and morality continually push and pull from one side to the other; However, with ease Hardin effectively provides a paddle of logic, anecdote and metaphor to guide his general audience to his embankment.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Forrest's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Forrest Lamb
Professor Spencer
Writing 150/H
7 November 2011
It is difficult to live in the world’s wealthiest nation and not think, from time to time, about shunning the poor. This is probably true of all Americans, but most of all for those who are upper-class. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin ineffectively uses hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotation, dissuading his upper-class American audience from his view that only by refusing to share their resources with the poor can wealthier people avoid bringing both rich and poor to a state of inevitable ruin.
Hardin uses hyperbole when describing the disastrous consequences that would come to a world in which the rich share freely with the poor. He presents a scenario in which the population of the U.S. pools its resources with an equal number of people from poorer countries around the world. Correctly figuring that, were both populations to maintain their current rate of growth for eighty-seven years, the poorer people would soon be eight times as many as the rich, he concludes that, “Each American would have to share the available resource with eight other people. ” However, this assumes that the Americans would pool in all of their resources while the poorer countries contribute nothing, an unlikely eventuality. It also implies that the poorer population, after gaining some portion of wealth over eighty-seven years, would never increase their productivity and therefore their contribution to the resource pool. The educated American recognizes these exaggerations, and is led to question the validity of Hardin’s predictions.
Once more Hardin describes with hyperbole the state of the world, were wealth to be distributed equitably among all people. To so divide wealth, he maintains, “would guarantee…a ruined world.” This condemning claim leaves the upper-class American thinking, “Is there really no middle ground?” That is, “Can my own charitable actions really guarantee the end of our world?” Certainly this is not the case. No matter one’s actions, one cannot expect they will ensure that the world be utterly destroyed. This readily-apparent overstatement forces the reader to begin to take Hardin’s words with a grain of salt.
Hardin’s use of juxtaposition diminishes his audience’s willingness to accept his argument against helping the poor. He provides a quote to compare “the spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body.” He quotes, “cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it,” likening in a very personal manner those in poverty to the mutated growths of a deadly disease, one that American society views as totally evil for the very reason that it brings people to harm. This harsh description of another human being not only goes against an American’s ingrained sense of human equality, but further makes them more defensive of the poor, and in turn more sympathetic to their situation and needs.
Furthermore, Hardin reinforces the pointlessness of sharing resources through the juxtaposition of humans and cattle. “A farmer,” he asserts, “will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies.” Though this may well be true, are we to ignore the capacity of man to do much more than a cow raised for the slaughter, wasting away its days as it grows fat on the land another has provided? Americans, especially in the upper-class, are more aware of human potential than most and can easily see the limitations of such a comparison. What’s more, the wealthy American upper-class are not likely flattered to be compared to their food. This parasitic portrayal of human-kind leaves the audience uncomfortable and defensive.
Lastly, Hardin consistently employs strong negative connotations to portray the possible viewpoints of those in opposition to his argument as unhelpfully antagonistic. This consistent, unrelenting and one-sided attack on his opponent leaves room only for sympathy toward them. He suggests that those who oppose his view on U.S. immigration policy charge his side with “bigotry” and “chauvinism,” averting participants of the debate from its true topic. He states, “all charges of bigotry and chauvinism [are] irrelevant.” This off-topic discussion of the flaws of his opponents, without reference to any possible degree a validity in their arguments deepens the audience’s sympathy toward them.
Also, in response to a hypothetical liberal’s question of why in situations of emergency the poor must suffer through events that their governments could have prevented, he replies, “The concept of blame is simply not relevant.” This cool statement makes it seem as though liberals are straying from the issue at hand to blame others unnecessarily, when instead they are arguing the innocence of the poor. Even this subtle, though obviously false assertion that liberals are unnecessarily placing blame on others, in conjunction with his generally abundant use of negative connotations serves to further overwhelm a person’s ability to find fault with Hardin’s opposition.
Upon noticing this trend toward negative descriptions of Hardin’s opposition, the reader wonders if the opposing party might be somewhat better than Hardin makes them out to be and begins to regard them more favorably.
Hardin’s ineffective use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotations, from the standpoint of his upper-class American audience, discredit his argument that the wealthy must not share their resources with the poor in order to save the world state of utter ruin. He advocates shunning the poor, but makes his audience feel highly uncomfortable about doing so. Perhaps those wealthy Americans who read, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” will find themselves inclined to do just that.
Professor Spencer
Writing 150/H
7 November 2011
It is difficult to live in the world’s wealthiest nation and not think, from time to time, about shunning the poor. This is probably true of all Americans, but most of all for those who are upper-class. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin ineffectively uses hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotation, dissuading his upper-class American audience from his view that only by refusing to share their resources with the poor can wealthier people avoid bringing both rich and poor to a state of inevitable ruin.
Hardin uses hyperbole when describing the disastrous consequences that would come to a world in which the rich share freely with the poor. He presents a scenario in which the population of the U.S. pools its resources with an equal number of people from poorer countries around the world. Correctly figuring that, were both populations to maintain their current rate of growth for eighty-seven years, the poorer people would soon be eight times as many as the rich, he concludes that, “Each American would have to share the available resource with eight other people. ” However, this assumes that the Americans would pool in all of their resources while the poorer countries contribute nothing, an unlikely eventuality. It also implies that the poorer population, after gaining some portion of wealth over eighty-seven years, would never increase their productivity and therefore their contribution to the resource pool. The educated American recognizes these exaggerations, and is led to question the validity of Hardin’s predictions.
Once more Hardin describes with hyperbole the state of the world, were wealth to be distributed equitably among all people. To so divide wealth, he maintains, “would guarantee…a ruined world.” This condemning claim leaves the upper-class American thinking, “Is there really no middle ground?” That is, “Can my own charitable actions really guarantee the end of our world?” Certainly this is not the case. No matter one’s actions, one cannot expect they will ensure that the world be utterly destroyed. This readily-apparent overstatement forces the reader to begin to take Hardin’s words with a grain of salt.
Hardin’s use of juxtaposition diminishes his audience’s willingness to accept his argument against helping the poor. He provides a quote to compare “the spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body.” He quotes, “cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it,” likening in a very personal manner those in poverty to the mutated growths of a deadly disease, one that American society views as totally evil for the very reason that it brings people to harm. This harsh description of another human being not only goes against an American’s ingrained sense of human equality, but further makes them more defensive of the poor, and in turn more sympathetic to their situation and needs.
Furthermore, Hardin reinforces the pointlessness of sharing resources through the juxtaposition of humans and cattle. “A farmer,” he asserts, “will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies.” Though this may well be true, are we to ignore the capacity of man to do much more than a cow raised for the slaughter, wasting away its days as it grows fat on the land another has provided? Americans, especially in the upper-class, are more aware of human potential than most and can easily see the limitations of such a comparison. What’s more, the wealthy American upper-class are not likely flattered to be compared to their food. This parasitic portrayal of human-kind leaves the audience uncomfortable and defensive.
Lastly, Hardin consistently employs strong negative connotations to portray the possible viewpoints of those in opposition to his argument as unhelpfully antagonistic. This consistent, unrelenting and one-sided attack on his opponent leaves room only for sympathy toward them. He suggests that those who oppose his view on U.S. immigration policy charge his side with “bigotry” and “chauvinism,” averting participants of the debate from its true topic. He states, “all charges of bigotry and chauvinism [are] irrelevant.” This off-topic discussion of the flaws of his opponents, without reference to any possible degree a validity in their arguments deepens the audience’s sympathy toward them.
Also, in response to a hypothetical liberal’s question of why in situations of emergency the poor must suffer through events that their governments could have prevented, he replies, “The concept of blame is simply not relevant.” This cool statement makes it seem as though liberals are straying from the issue at hand to blame others unnecessarily, when instead they are arguing the innocence of the poor. Even this subtle, though obviously false assertion that liberals are unnecessarily placing blame on others, in conjunction with his generally abundant use of negative connotations serves to further overwhelm a person’s ability to find fault with Hardin’s opposition.
Upon noticing this trend toward negative descriptions of Hardin’s opposition, the reader wonders if the opposing party might be somewhat better than Hardin makes them out to be and begins to regard them more favorably.
Hardin’s ineffective use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotations, from the standpoint of his upper-class American audience, discredit his argument that the wealthy must not share their resources with the poor in order to save the world state of utter ruin. He advocates shunning the poor, but makes his audience feel highly uncomfortable about doing so. Perhaps those wealthy Americans who read, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” will find themselves inclined to do just that.
Venice's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Venice Jardine
Writing 150
Critical Analysis
November 7th 2011
Venice’s Critique on “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin
There is no denying the magnitude of the United States’ currently devastated economy. Politicians and economists alike are constantly taunted by the dark cloud that hangs over the American public, threatening the worst, and though many have stepped in to assist in or offer possible solutions to this overlying predicament, we have not yet come to terms with an effective plan. One such attempted suggestion, by Garrett Hardin, is illustrated in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Though he gives extensive examples supporting his viewpoint, he is still unable to convince his readers to adopt the ideals of his contrivance. This failure to gain the confidence of his American middle-class audience is wrought by his ineffective employment of euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos.
Throughout the essay, Hardin attempts to use euphemism in order to mask the otherwise potentially offensive argument against helping the poor. If done effectively, this tool has the ability to lead the reader to inevitably conclude that the author is correct in his assumptions, however the approach taken by Hardin to do so is feeble and therefore ineffective. When speaking of the epidemic of hunger and the possibility of a world food bank he states, “those who propose the food bank usually refer to a current ‘emergency’ or ‘crisis’ in terms of world food supply. But what is an emergency? Although they may be infrequent and sudden, everyone knows that emergencies will occur from time to time. A well-run family, company, organization or country prepares for the likelihood of accidents and emergencies. It expects them, it budgets for them, it saves for them.” (Hardin, 311) Here he tries to settle the murky waters of his self-created waves by assuring the audience that world hunger is a daily occurrence undeserving of the title “emergency”, but by thus stating gives his audience opportunity to question his validity. Hardin makes the effort to support his rationale by placing the façade of euphemism before it, yet this very façade is transparent. The reader is not only dissuaded of Hardin’s opinion but suffer a reverse of the desired effect—he comes to terms with Hardin’s opposition which inevitably seems far more appealing and sensible. Hardin’s attempt at rationalizing his unwillingness to give to the poor therefore falls flat on its face, leading the reader to sympathize more with Hardin’s opposition than Hardin himself.
Next, his flawed use of archetype further dissuades his reader from siding with him. Hardin unknowingly falls into the trap of stereotyping the poor as desperate, clinging bodies of greed without the least bit of sympathy for their fellow human beings. He warns that they will not give back and will be ungrateful for what we give them, thus we must be constantly on the watch to protect our society from their merciless need, suggesting we protect the morality of our humble society by forsaking them altogether. Explaining our predicament using the lifeboat analogy, he says, “The needy person to whom the guilt-ridden person yields his place will not himself feel guilty about his good luck… The net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat.” This archetype of the poor—that they are completely void of conscience and concerned only with themselves is entirely false, and the idea that we will only protect the conscience of our society by not helping others in dire circumstances is completely contradictory. The reader, once again, sees straight through his use of archetype, recognizing that he is applying the stereotype far too liberally, further convincing him that he should not take part in Hardin’s opinion at all.
Finally, Hardin’s attempt to appeal to pathos to influence his readers in the direction of his ideals falls flat as well. His overarching goal is to convince the reader of the dangers of yielding himself to service of those in need—that the only way to save our own society is to focus solely on that. Though a thought-provoking argument in and of itself, Hardin does not present it in a way that would lead one to follow its ideals. Hardin speaks of the 60 people able to fit in the lifeboat and the hundreds of others floating about, “who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth,” when truthfully they are only wanting to survive, not to be hopelessly wealthy. Yes, the lifeboat may be meant for only sixty, but being an American boat it seems fitting that there be a cozy suite for each, and since we are unwilling to give all of it, we do not give any. Exerting his efforts to appeal to pathos, he tries to reel in the portion of the American public that wishes to hoard what we have, yet this has the opposite effect. He once again gives opportunity for the audience to be put on the defensive, reversing the desired outcome.
Though all are considered highly effective tools, Hardin employed euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos poorly and half-heartedly, leading audience to not only be unconvinced but to be convinced of his opposition’s opinions more readily. His feeble attempt to justify his own negligence inevitable fails.
Writing 150
Critical Analysis
November 7th 2011
Venice’s Critique on “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin
There is no denying the magnitude of the United States’ currently devastated economy. Politicians and economists alike are constantly taunted by the dark cloud that hangs over the American public, threatening the worst, and though many have stepped in to assist in or offer possible solutions to this overlying predicament, we have not yet come to terms with an effective plan. One such attempted suggestion, by Garrett Hardin, is illustrated in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Though he gives extensive examples supporting his viewpoint, he is still unable to convince his readers to adopt the ideals of his contrivance. This failure to gain the confidence of his American middle-class audience is wrought by his ineffective employment of euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos.
Throughout the essay, Hardin attempts to use euphemism in order to mask the otherwise potentially offensive argument against helping the poor. If done effectively, this tool has the ability to lead the reader to inevitably conclude that the author is correct in his assumptions, however the approach taken by Hardin to do so is feeble and therefore ineffective. When speaking of the epidemic of hunger and the possibility of a world food bank he states, “those who propose the food bank usually refer to a current ‘emergency’ or ‘crisis’ in terms of world food supply. But what is an emergency? Although they may be infrequent and sudden, everyone knows that emergencies will occur from time to time. A well-run family, company, organization or country prepares for the likelihood of accidents and emergencies. It expects them, it budgets for them, it saves for them.” (Hardin, 311) Here he tries to settle the murky waters of his self-created waves by assuring the audience that world hunger is a daily occurrence undeserving of the title “emergency”, but by thus stating gives his audience opportunity to question his validity. Hardin makes the effort to support his rationale by placing the façade of euphemism before it, yet this very façade is transparent. The reader is not only dissuaded of Hardin’s opinion but suffer a reverse of the desired effect—he comes to terms with Hardin’s opposition which inevitably seems far more appealing and sensible. Hardin’s attempt at rationalizing his unwillingness to give to the poor therefore falls flat on its face, leading the reader to sympathize more with Hardin’s opposition than Hardin himself.
Next, his flawed use of archetype further dissuades his reader from siding with him. Hardin unknowingly falls into the trap of stereotyping the poor as desperate, clinging bodies of greed without the least bit of sympathy for their fellow human beings. He warns that they will not give back and will be ungrateful for what we give them, thus we must be constantly on the watch to protect our society from their merciless need, suggesting we protect the morality of our humble society by forsaking them altogether. Explaining our predicament using the lifeboat analogy, he says, “The needy person to whom the guilt-ridden person yields his place will not himself feel guilty about his good luck… The net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat.” This archetype of the poor—that they are completely void of conscience and concerned only with themselves is entirely false, and the idea that we will only protect the conscience of our society by not helping others in dire circumstances is completely contradictory. The reader, once again, sees straight through his use of archetype, recognizing that he is applying the stereotype far too liberally, further convincing him that he should not take part in Hardin’s opinion at all.
Finally, Hardin’s attempt to appeal to pathos to influence his readers in the direction of his ideals falls flat as well. His overarching goal is to convince the reader of the dangers of yielding himself to service of those in need—that the only way to save our own society is to focus solely on that. Though a thought-provoking argument in and of itself, Hardin does not present it in a way that would lead one to follow its ideals. Hardin speaks of the 60 people able to fit in the lifeboat and the hundreds of others floating about, “who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth,” when truthfully they are only wanting to survive, not to be hopelessly wealthy. Yes, the lifeboat may be meant for only sixty, but being an American boat it seems fitting that there be a cozy suite for each, and since we are unwilling to give all of it, we do not give any. Exerting his efforts to appeal to pathos, he tries to reel in the portion of the American public that wishes to hoard what we have, yet this has the opposite effect. He once again gives opportunity for the audience to be put on the defensive, reversing the desired outcome.
Though all are considered highly effective tools, Hardin employed euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos poorly and half-heartedly, leading audience to not only be unconvinced but to be convinced of his opposition’s opinions more readily. His feeble attempt to justify his own negligence inevitable fails.
Jamie's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Jamie Smith
Dr. Spencer
Honors 150 University Writing
26 September 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor
Through his use of a variety of analogies, extended sentences paired with blunt commentaries, and rhetorical questions that successfully convinces a more moderate audience against providing assistance to the those in poverty, author Garrett Hardin successfully argues in his work, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” that the administration of relief to the poor does not fall within the responsibilities of more affluent and stable nations.
To illustrate this, Hardin uses a continual analogy throughout his argument which relates Earth to a spaceship. This provides a more personal mode through which readers can become a part of his work. Hardin asserts that the metaphor of Earth as a spaceship is one that has been implemented by environmentalists to “persuade countries, industries, and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources” while they argue against him, saying that “no single person or institution has the right to waste more than a fair share of its resources” (308). He counters with his position that “ the spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid” and that the only way such an analogy could be remotely plausible would be if Spaceship Earth was piloted by a captain. Hardin continues by arguing that, “Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members” (308). By providing this valid counter to the arguments offered by the “kindhearted liberal” portion of his readers, he successfully legitimizes the foundation for his idea that attempting to assist those in need will only lead to the undermining of stable nations (312).
Not only does Hardin dispel the arguments of critics, but he additionally offers a new, more realistic analogy—one that he continues to refer to throughout the rest of his work. The analogy of the lifeboat puts the true nature of helping the poor into perspective, in that it forces Hardin’s audience to visualize themselves in a survival situation which ultimately conveys the author’s reasoning. Using the idea that those who feel guilty about remaining secure in a lifeboat that seats fifty, while there are hundreds drowning in the sea around them, Hardin encourages readers to simply, “Get out and yield your place to others” should they feel guilty, as survival is only possible so long as people are “constantly on guard against boarding parties” (309). Such an analogy successfully dispels concerns that an audience who may have felt sympathetic to this cause would share. Because this comparison faces them with a critical life or death situation, it allows readers to reevaluate how passionately they believe in helping those less fortunate when the consequences of such actions will surely put their own existence in jeopardy.
In addition, the author utilizes a distinct style of complex arguments followed by straightforward statements throughout “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Following the analogy of a group of survivors in a lifeboat of fifty, Hardin is quick to dispel the “Christian ideal of being ‘our brother’s keeper’” (309). His clear-cut rationality is clearly illustrated while revealing that “ the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as ‘brothers’ we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for sixty. The boat swamps, everyone drowns” (309). Such a phrase not only provides support for his analogies and arguments, but additionally explicitly states the harsh reality of what would inevitably occur should wealthier countries take upon them the burden of helping the poor. Rather than remain optimistic about the assistance that can be provided to lesser countries like his intended audience, short and direct sentences provide not only the realism of how inhibiting this mindset is, but strikes readers who may wish to do the same with self-evident truths that are the backbone to Hardin’s successful convincing throughout this work. Ultimately, it is through this distinct structure that the author both illustrates and appeals to his broad audience that “rescuing” the impoverished will only lead to the economic failure of the affluent countries that are providing relief.
Hardin furthermore uses rhetorical questions to not only keep his audience engaged in his argument, but to make them realize the inherent flaws that accompany supporting less developed countries. By encouraging his audience to think, “Which ten do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best ten, the first come, first served? And what do we say to the ninety we exclude?” in his analogy of the lifeboat, Hardin not only dispels the counterarguments of other, but reinforces the strength of his hypothetical situation and rationality behind his ideas (308).
“Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” successfully utilizes the deeper connection an audience makes through analogies, direct hypothetical situations, and varied syntax to convey the often overlooked reality of providing assistance to those living in poverty.
Dr. Spencer
Honors 150 University Writing
26 September 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor
Through his use of a variety of analogies, extended sentences paired with blunt commentaries, and rhetorical questions that successfully convinces a more moderate audience against providing assistance to the those in poverty, author Garrett Hardin successfully argues in his work, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” that the administration of relief to the poor does not fall within the responsibilities of more affluent and stable nations.
To illustrate this, Hardin uses a continual analogy throughout his argument which relates Earth to a spaceship. This provides a more personal mode through which readers can become a part of his work. Hardin asserts that the metaphor of Earth as a spaceship is one that has been implemented by environmentalists to “persuade countries, industries, and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources” while they argue against him, saying that “no single person or institution has the right to waste more than a fair share of its resources” (308). He counters with his position that “ the spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid” and that the only way such an analogy could be remotely plausible would be if Spaceship Earth was piloted by a captain. Hardin continues by arguing that, “Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members” (308). By providing this valid counter to the arguments offered by the “kindhearted liberal” portion of his readers, he successfully legitimizes the foundation for his idea that attempting to assist those in need will only lead to the undermining of stable nations (312).
Not only does Hardin dispel the arguments of critics, but he additionally offers a new, more realistic analogy—one that he continues to refer to throughout the rest of his work. The analogy of the lifeboat puts the true nature of helping the poor into perspective, in that it forces Hardin’s audience to visualize themselves in a survival situation which ultimately conveys the author’s reasoning. Using the idea that those who feel guilty about remaining secure in a lifeboat that seats fifty, while there are hundreds drowning in the sea around them, Hardin encourages readers to simply, “Get out and yield your place to others” should they feel guilty, as survival is only possible so long as people are “constantly on guard against boarding parties” (309). Such an analogy successfully dispels concerns that an audience who may have felt sympathetic to this cause would share. Because this comparison faces them with a critical life or death situation, it allows readers to reevaluate how passionately they believe in helping those less fortunate when the consequences of such actions will surely put their own existence in jeopardy.
In addition, the author utilizes a distinct style of complex arguments followed by straightforward statements throughout “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Following the analogy of a group of survivors in a lifeboat of fifty, Hardin is quick to dispel the “Christian ideal of being ‘our brother’s keeper’” (309). His clear-cut rationality is clearly illustrated while revealing that “ the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as ‘brothers’ we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for sixty. The boat swamps, everyone drowns” (309). Such a phrase not only provides support for his analogies and arguments, but additionally explicitly states the harsh reality of what would inevitably occur should wealthier countries take upon them the burden of helping the poor. Rather than remain optimistic about the assistance that can be provided to lesser countries like his intended audience, short and direct sentences provide not only the realism of how inhibiting this mindset is, but strikes readers who may wish to do the same with self-evident truths that are the backbone to Hardin’s successful convincing throughout this work. Ultimately, it is through this distinct structure that the author both illustrates and appeals to his broad audience that “rescuing” the impoverished will only lead to the economic failure of the affluent countries that are providing relief.
Hardin furthermore uses rhetorical questions to not only keep his audience engaged in his argument, but to make them realize the inherent flaws that accompany supporting less developed countries. By encouraging his audience to think, “Which ten do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best ten, the first come, first served? And what do we say to the ninety we exclude?” in his analogy of the lifeboat, Hardin not only dispels the counterarguments of other, but reinforces the strength of his hypothetical situation and rationality behind his ideas (308).
“Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” successfully utilizes the deeper connection an audience makes through analogies, direct hypothetical situations, and varied syntax to convey the often overlooked reality of providing assistance to those living in poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)