You can find it here:
http://mormonartist.net/2012/02/day-kerry-spencer/
In case you were wondering, this is NOT an example of a personal narrative. It’s a personal essay.
You should read it in the dark when you’re alone, preferably. And then if it scares the crap out of you or otherwise creeps you out, send it to everyone you feel like creeping out!
(This essay is a finalist in a competition and the winner will be determined by number of votes and that is half determined by how many people *see* it. I’m going to stop short of telling you I’ll give you extra credit to vote, or to spam it around, though. Because that seems wrong. Is it wrong? Is it bad that I don’t know? :)(Here’s what I will say: if you help it get read and I happen to win, I’ll bring doughnuts or something. Plus it would just be awesome.)
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Emma M's Analysis of "When Nice Ain't So Nice"
Emma Mortensen
Freshmen Writing 150 Honors
2/23/12
The Price of Being Nice
From early childhood, we are taught to be “nice,” but is there such a thing as too much nice? Elouise Bell believes that Nice ain’t so nice at all. In her article When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Professor Bell uses personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition to effectively reveal the insidious character of Niceness.
Throughout Bell’s article, Nice is personified in many ways. Foremost, the word is usually capitalized, making it a proper noun, like a name. Nice becomes a specific entity instead of an abstract quality. The first example of personification happens in the sentence, “The problem with Nice isn’t that it’s sometimes wimpy; the problem is that Nice can be dangerous” (170) From the beginning, “nice” demonstrates human attributes, especially that of being dangerous. This use of personification establishes the tone and instantly identifies the purpose of the essay.
The second example of personification is in the last paragraph of the article:
Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind, nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But, being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth. (174)
Here Bell clearly states exactly what is wrong with Nice. Nice becomes something that “is” and “wants.” It becomes an entity of desire. This personification makes the idea of Nice more tangible and threatening to the audience because it is an actual physical presence that can affect them. Nice is called the “Great Imposter” signifying the utter deceitfulness it displays. Nice is portrayed a liar and a fake, which lends weight to the assertion that Nice is a treacherous evil.
In addition to personification, Bell uses parallelism in her article to emphasize the menace that is Niceness. An example of this is:
. . . Courage is the virtue that protects all other virtues. That is, it is courage which enables us to be truthful when speaking the truth might be risky; it is courage that backs up loyalty when loyalty is unpopular; it is certainly courage which makes patriotism meaningful in time of danger… it is niceness which can corrupt all other virtues. Niceness edits truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love. (170-171)
The same qualities that courage supports, specifically truth, loyalty, and patriotism, illustrate what Niceness undermines. This parallelism shows that niceness is the complete opposite of courage; it tears down all that courage upholds. The structure of this quote underscores the destructive power of Nice.
Another important example of parallelism is:
Not wanting to know, not willing to know, not about to know...Not to take one nibble from one piece of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but to remain, instead, Nice. Not to know about History, except for a few pretty branches used as decoration...Certainly not to know about Poverty...Not to know about Death, but to confine him to curtained cubicles in isolated “units” of hospitals and nursing homes. (174)
Bell is explaining how the word “nice” can be traced to the Latin “nescius,” meaning ignorance. This connection reveals the major peril of niceness: deliberate, lazy not knowing. Each sentence begins with the phrase “not to know,” greatly emphasizing the negative facets of Niceness. This emphasis stimulates the audience to recognize exactly what is so bad about this deliberate ignorance. The parallelism reinforces the significance of the quote.
Parallelism is similarly evident in the other half of each sentence in the above quote. The structure is as follows: not to know ___, but to ____ instead. Not only are those who only want to be Nice unconcerned about learning of good and evil, history, or death, they are also intentionally hiding the negative aspects of these. Instead of partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, they are content to remain Nice. Instead of regarding the whole of history, they only see the frivolous happy parts. Instead of accepting death, they hide it away in the confined spaces of hospitals and nursing homes. People who only want Niceness exhibit the above traits and ignorance. The parallelism is an extremely effective way of highlighting the adverse consequences involved with being Nice.
Similar to parallelism is Bell’s use of juxtaposition. The first instance of juxtaposition is Bell’s description of the tone that many Letters to the Editor of BYU’s Student Newspaper display, “They are hostile and mean-spirited...the letters drip with innuendo, invective, and scripture-laden scourging. All this from neatly dressed, smiling youths who hold doors open for each other and walk clear across campus to turn in stray Number Two pencils to the Lost-and-Found depository” (171). The images of the hateful and derogatory letters and the polite and thoughtful students are completely opposite each other and are usually unrelated. The juxtaposition of the two grabs the audience’s attention and holds it. This in turn brings greater force to the display of how deceitful Nice can be.
Another case of juxtaposition is:
I learned that in my very nice young-executive neighborhood...at least five wives are beaten regularly by their husbands. One of the nicest men in the ward has been convicted of sexual molestation. Absolutely the nicest elder I knew in the mission field afterward had to uproot his wife and family and give up his profession because he had been found guilty of molesting preschoolers. (172)
These are examples of people in Bell’s own neighborhood that have been deceived by Niceness. The common perception the audience has of nice totally contrasts the picture displayed in the quote. Those who are nice would never commit such heinous crimes, yet they tend to be the greatest offenders. The juxtaposition of what nice is supposed to be and those who committed these crimes proves to the audience that their view of Nice is skewed; thereby convincing them that Bell’s point, that Nice is treacherous, to be true.
Elouise Bell’s article, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, reveals the true nature of what Nice is through personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition. This article causes the audience to reevaluate all they had previously thought about the absolute importance of being nice. It scours away the appealing coat of duplicity to expose the core of self-imposed ignorance and insidious poison that Nice implants in human beings; such internal erosion is the ultimate price of being Nice.
Works Cited
Bell, Elouise. "When Nice Ain't So Nice." Print. Rpt. in Readings for Intensive Writers. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. 5th ed. Provo: BYU Academic, 2007. 170-74. Print.
Freshmen Writing 150 Honors
2/23/12
The Price of Being Nice
From early childhood, we are taught to be “nice,” but is there such a thing as too much nice? Elouise Bell believes that Nice ain’t so nice at all. In her article When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Professor Bell uses personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition to effectively reveal the insidious character of Niceness.
Throughout Bell’s article, Nice is personified in many ways. Foremost, the word is usually capitalized, making it a proper noun, like a name. Nice becomes a specific entity instead of an abstract quality. The first example of personification happens in the sentence, “The problem with Nice isn’t that it’s sometimes wimpy; the problem is that Nice can be dangerous” (170) From the beginning, “nice” demonstrates human attributes, especially that of being dangerous. This use of personification establishes the tone and instantly identifies the purpose of the essay.
The second example of personification is in the last paragraph of the article:
Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind, nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But, being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth. (174)
Here Bell clearly states exactly what is wrong with Nice. Nice becomes something that “is” and “wants.” It becomes an entity of desire. This personification makes the idea of Nice more tangible and threatening to the audience because it is an actual physical presence that can affect them. Nice is called the “Great Imposter” signifying the utter deceitfulness it displays. Nice is portrayed a liar and a fake, which lends weight to the assertion that Nice is a treacherous evil.
In addition to personification, Bell uses parallelism in her article to emphasize the menace that is Niceness. An example of this is:
. . . Courage is the virtue that protects all other virtues. That is, it is courage which enables us to be truthful when speaking the truth might be risky; it is courage that backs up loyalty when loyalty is unpopular; it is certainly courage which makes patriotism meaningful in time of danger… it is niceness which can corrupt all other virtues. Niceness edits truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love. (170-171)
The same qualities that courage supports, specifically truth, loyalty, and patriotism, illustrate what Niceness undermines. This parallelism shows that niceness is the complete opposite of courage; it tears down all that courage upholds. The structure of this quote underscores the destructive power of Nice.
Another important example of parallelism is:
Not wanting to know, not willing to know, not about to know...Not to take one nibble from one piece of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but to remain, instead, Nice. Not to know about History, except for a few pretty branches used as decoration...Certainly not to know about Poverty...Not to know about Death, but to confine him to curtained cubicles in isolated “units” of hospitals and nursing homes. (174)
Bell is explaining how the word “nice” can be traced to the Latin “nescius,” meaning ignorance. This connection reveals the major peril of niceness: deliberate, lazy not knowing. Each sentence begins with the phrase “not to know,” greatly emphasizing the negative facets of Niceness. This emphasis stimulates the audience to recognize exactly what is so bad about this deliberate ignorance. The parallelism reinforces the significance of the quote.
Parallelism is similarly evident in the other half of each sentence in the above quote. The structure is as follows: not to know ___, but to ____ instead. Not only are those who only want to be Nice unconcerned about learning of good and evil, history, or death, they are also intentionally hiding the negative aspects of these. Instead of partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, they are content to remain Nice. Instead of regarding the whole of history, they only see the frivolous happy parts. Instead of accepting death, they hide it away in the confined spaces of hospitals and nursing homes. People who only want Niceness exhibit the above traits and ignorance. The parallelism is an extremely effective way of highlighting the adverse consequences involved with being Nice.
Similar to parallelism is Bell’s use of juxtaposition. The first instance of juxtaposition is Bell’s description of the tone that many Letters to the Editor of BYU’s Student Newspaper display, “They are hostile and mean-spirited...the letters drip with innuendo, invective, and scripture-laden scourging. All this from neatly dressed, smiling youths who hold doors open for each other and walk clear across campus to turn in stray Number Two pencils to the Lost-and-Found depository” (171). The images of the hateful and derogatory letters and the polite and thoughtful students are completely opposite each other and are usually unrelated. The juxtaposition of the two grabs the audience’s attention and holds it. This in turn brings greater force to the display of how deceitful Nice can be.
Another case of juxtaposition is:
I learned that in my very nice young-executive neighborhood...at least five wives are beaten regularly by their husbands. One of the nicest men in the ward has been convicted of sexual molestation. Absolutely the nicest elder I knew in the mission field afterward had to uproot his wife and family and give up his profession because he had been found guilty of molesting preschoolers. (172)
These are examples of people in Bell’s own neighborhood that have been deceived by Niceness. The common perception the audience has of nice totally contrasts the picture displayed in the quote. Those who are nice would never commit such heinous crimes, yet they tend to be the greatest offenders. The juxtaposition of what nice is supposed to be and those who committed these crimes proves to the audience that their view of Nice is skewed; thereby convincing them that Bell’s point, that Nice is treacherous, to be true.
Elouise Bell’s article, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, reveals the true nature of what Nice is through personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition. This article causes the audience to reevaluate all they had previously thought about the absolute importance of being nice. It scours away the appealing coat of duplicity to expose the core of self-imposed ignorance and insidious poison that Nice implants in human beings; such internal erosion is the ultimate price of being Nice.
Works Cited
Bell, Elouise. "When Nice Ain't So Nice." Print. Rpt. in Readings for Intensive Writers. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. 5th ed. Provo: BYU Academic, 2007. 170-74. Print.
Emily J's Analysis of "When Nice Ain't So Nice"
Emily Johns
Honors Writing 150
A Critical Analysis of When Nice Ain’t So Nice by Elouise Bell
In an essay written by Elouise Bell titled, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Bell explores reasons behind her theory of why being nice is not always nice. Giving examples of crimes committed by murderers, rapists, and child molesters, Bell claims that most crimes have been committed by seemingly nice people. Bell uses logos and diction to effectively convince the reader that it is not always nice to be nice and that it is okay to show other emotions.
In the first paragraph of Bell’s essay she writes, “The problem is that Nice can be dangerous.” She immediately after informs the reader that more crimes have been committed by people with a “mask of niceness” than all the “ski masks,” meaning crimes that consist of the criminal wearing some type of physical mask to hide their identity. Using logic the reader will agree that people that are more dangerous are those that you do not immediately associate danger with. Bell uses the example of masks to clearly state that people that do not hide their identity are those that are the most dangerous.
Giving examples of many criminals that were and are considered “nice” people excluding the criminal act that they performed, Bell was able to make clear the difference between the “nice” criminals and those that were not so nice. The criminals that Bell included in her essay are known for the brutal crimes they were responsible for. The reader, using logic, is unable to disagree that point. The examples of these “nice” criminals help prove Bells point that crimes are not only committed by people who are obviously angry, violent, or mentally insane. Crimes are committed by your neighbor, teacher, best friend and family member. People that seem to be “nice” and completely put together are the ones that, Bell hints at, should be the most looked out for.
Bell gives the example of college students. While being at Brigham Young University she noticed that majority of the student body believed that if they were nice enough to the professor that in return the professor would be nice enough to give them a good grade. “Niceness in some students’ minds fulfills al obligations that one might otherwise expect to see paid in the coin of effort, intelligence, and results.” This meant to Bell that students in college seem to believe that the way you act towards each other and the professor should make up for any lack of hard work or intelligence that is necessary in receiving a good grade. By using the example of college students in an essay published to be read by college students, Bell was able to reach a personal aspect of the reader. Because the reader expected to be a college student, they will be able to identify with the example of the college student being nice to get a better grade. Whether the student agrees with this argument or not, they are able to relate to it and may be able to see it in other students if not themselves.
The example provided by C.S. Lewis, who says that courage is the virtue that protects every other virtue, Bell is able to use this theory to further explain her own. Bell explains Lewis’ theory of the protected virtues but then gives her own theory. Believing, with the same logic as Lewis, that niceness is what can corrupt every virtue. “Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, shortcircuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love.” By capitalizing the first letter of specific words puts an importance on each word used. Bell’s diction is clearly displayed in this example. The reader is able to realize that the words beginning with a capital letter are important to the author and therefore should be important to them as the reader. The way that Bell uses the words in capital starting letter is her way to make their importance clear. Her theory is using the same logic used by Lewis and therefore should make perfect sense if the reader uses logic as well.
Being nice is something that is taught at a young age in the home to children. Bell brings in the psychologist Alice Miller’s thoughts to explain that being nice is part of this century. Children are taught to be docile, subservient, and obedient to the parent. Miller calls this the “poisonous pedagogy.” She explains that is teaches children to simply be nice, no matter what. This teaching sticks with children as they grow to become adults. Bell states that she can see this in the “nice people” all around her in the way that they act when they disagree and wish to not be so nice. She claims that these people are nice when face to face but hostile if they do not know the person to whom they disagree with.
She then goes on to explain that being nice is not solely taught in the home but it is taught as part of our culture. She calls this a “cultural mandate” and that a man’s dark side is sent into hiding and that women are not supposed to have a dark side. Culture has made it seem unacceptable to be anything but nice. It is expected for someone to be nice even when someone is not nice to them. This pressure leads to suppressed anger and other emotions that when they finally surface, it can be in an extreme way, such as with the criminals spoken of earlier. This is just another example of how Bell writes in aim of the readers’ logic.
Pathos is another way that the author expresses her thoughts for the reader to understand. She does this when she speaks of when saying that, “the creed of niceness does damage to the Self, to the soul.” Aiming for the readers emotions using words like self and soul, Bell was able to get to the emotions of the reader. Going further in using pathos she associated “demons” with pride, sloth, envy and avarice. She called the less obvious ones as “pastel despots” which included conformity, busyness and niceness. Associating these negative terms with being nice and that they can have the same effect causes the reader to search themselves and acknowledge what their own “niceness” has done.
Never does Bell argue that being nice is a bad thing. She does not support treating people poorly or doing things that are in any way opposite of being nice. The point of her essay is to acknowledge that being nice is not always being true to one’s self. She explains the journey that we must all take to get to true self authenticity. Suppressing certain emotions or self expression will only hurt that journey to finding ones true self. This is another way that Bell used pathos in her writing. Bell’s knows that the reader will begin to think of themselves when reading this and that is her goal. Making the reader not only aware of the effects of being nice on those around you and society but also what it can do to your own-self really gets to the core of the readers emotions.
Knowing that most of the readers of this essay at Brigham Young University are Christian, Bell includes a “Nice Creed” written for the Christian confession of faith. This state’s very strict rules to what being nice should be. When reading these rules, one would feel as if they are being instructed to have no opinion, feelings or way to express them self. This further explains Bell’s point that being nice ain’t so nice.
Towards the end of her essay, Bell goes back to the beginning of the world. She uses the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. She states that a world where everyone was just “nice” Adam should not have taken a bite of fruit but should have instead remained “nice.” To end this way is almost poking fun at the concept of being only nice. Because Adam was not “nice” and partook of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is a world today. While being nice is good, it is not the only way to be. Bill’s encourages the reader to be in touch with their feelings and to be able to express them freely. Even if it is not always so nice, it will help in the path to self discovery. In closing, Bill calls being nice the Great Imposter because it is being puffed up in one’s own vanity. There are other emotions to have and to express so being nice ain’t so nice.
Honors Writing 150
A Critical Analysis of When Nice Ain’t So Nice by Elouise Bell
In an essay written by Elouise Bell titled, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Bell explores reasons behind her theory of why being nice is not always nice. Giving examples of crimes committed by murderers, rapists, and child molesters, Bell claims that most crimes have been committed by seemingly nice people. Bell uses logos and diction to effectively convince the reader that it is not always nice to be nice and that it is okay to show other emotions.
In the first paragraph of Bell’s essay she writes, “The problem is that Nice can be dangerous.” She immediately after informs the reader that more crimes have been committed by people with a “mask of niceness” than all the “ski masks,” meaning crimes that consist of the criminal wearing some type of physical mask to hide their identity. Using logic the reader will agree that people that are more dangerous are those that you do not immediately associate danger with. Bell uses the example of masks to clearly state that people that do not hide their identity are those that are the most dangerous.
Giving examples of many criminals that were and are considered “nice” people excluding the criminal act that they performed, Bell was able to make clear the difference between the “nice” criminals and those that were not so nice. The criminals that Bell included in her essay are known for the brutal crimes they were responsible for. The reader, using logic, is unable to disagree that point. The examples of these “nice” criminals help prove Bells point that crimes are not only committed by people who are obviously angry, violent, or mentally insane. Crimes are committed by your neighbor, teacher, best friend and family member. People that seem to be “nice” and completely put together are the ones that, Bell hints at, should be the most looked out for.
Bell gives the example of college students. While being at Brigham Young University she noticed that majority of the student body believed that if they were nice enough to the professor that in return the professor would be nice enough to give them a good grade. “Niceness in some students’ minds fulfills al obligations that one might otherwise expect to see paid in the coin of effort, intelligence, and results.” This meant to Bell that students in college seem to believe that the way you act towards each other and the professor should make up for any lack of hard work or intelligence that is necessary in receiving a good grade. By using the example of college students in an essay published to be read by college students, Bell was able to reach a personal aspect of the reader. Because the reader expected to be a college student, they will be able to identify with the example of the college student being nice to get a better grade. Whether the student agrees with this argument or not, they are able to relate to it and may be able to see it in other students if not themselves.
The example provided by C.S. Lewis, who says that courage is the virtue that protects every other virtue, Bell is able to use this theory to further explain her own. Bell explains Lewis’ theory of the protected virtues but then gives her own theory. Believing, with the same logic as Lewis, that niceness is what can corrupt every virtue. “Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, shortcircuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love.” By capitalizing the first letter of specific words puts an importance on each word used. Bell’s diction is clearly displayed in this example. The reader is able to realize that the words beginning with a capital letter are important to the author and therefore should be important to them as the reader. The way that Bell uses the words in capital starting letter is her way to make their importance clear. Her theory is using the same logic used by Lewis and therefore should make perfect sense if the reader uses logic as well.
Being nice is something that is taught at a young age in the home to children. Bell brings in the psychologist Alice Miller’s thoughts to explain that being nice is part of this century. Children are taught to be docile, subservient, and obedient to the parent. Miller calls this the “poisonous pedagogy.” She explains that is teaches children to simply be nice, no matter what. This teaching sticks with children as they grow to become adults. Bell states that she can see this in the “nice people” all around her in the way that they act when they disagree and wish to not be so nice. She claims that these people are nice when face to face but hostile if they do not know the person to whom they disagree with.
She then goes on to explain that being nice is not solely taught in the home but it is taught as part of our culture. She calls this a “cultural mandate” and that a man’s dark side is sent into hiding and that women are not supposed to have a dark side. Culture has made it seem unacceptable to be anything but nice. It is expected for someone to be nice even when someone is not nice to them. This pressure leads to suppressed anger and other emotions that when they finally surface, it can be in an extreme way, such as with the criminals spoken of earlier. This is just another example of how Bell writes in aim of the readers’ logic.
Pathos is another way that the author expresses her thoughts for the reader to understand. She does this when she speaks of when saying that, “the creed of niceness does damage to the Self, to the soul.” Aiming for the readers emotions using words like self and soul, Bell was able to get to the emotions of the reader. Going further in using pathos she associated “demons” with pride, sloth, envy and avarice. She called the less obvious ones as “pastel despots” which included conformity, busyness and niceness. Associating these negative terms with being nice and that they can have the same effect causes the reader to search themselves and acknowledge what their own “niceness” has done.
Never does Bell argue that being nice is a bad thing. She does not support treating people poorly or doing things that are in any way opposite of being nice. The point of her essay is to acknowledge that being nice is not always being true to one’s self. She explains the journey that we must all take to get to true self authenticity. Suppressing certain emotions or self expression will only hurt that journey to finding ones true self. This is another way that Bell used pathos in her writing. Bell’s knows that the reader will begin to think of themselves when reading this and that is her goal. Making the reader not only aware of the effects of being nice on those around you and society but also what it can do to your own-self really gets to the core of the readers emotions.
Knowing that most of the readers of this essay at Brigham Young University are Christian, Bell includes a “Nice Creed” written for the Christian confession of faith. This state’s very strict rules to what being nice should be. When reading these rules, one would feel as if they are being instructed to have no opinion, feelings or way to express them self. This further explains Bell’s point that being nice ain’t so nice.
Towards the end of her essay, Bell goes back to the beginning of the world. She uses the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. She states that a world where everyone was just “nice” Adam should not have taken a bite of fruit but should have instead remained “nice.” To end this way is almost poking fun at the concept of being only nice. Because Adam was not “nice” and partook of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is a world today. While being nice is good, it is not the only way to be. Bill’s encourages the reader to be in touch with their feelings and to be able to express them freely. Even if it is not always so nice, it will help in the path to self discovery. In closing, Bill calls being nice the Great Imposter because it is being puffed up in one’s own vanity. There are other emotions to have and to express so being nice ain’t so nice.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Great Works Adventure! i.e. What You'll Be Doing Tomorrow Instead of a Formal Class
GW Hunting Part two! (If you don't see this until you get to class and I'm not there, have no fear: Your first challenge in the GW Adventure is to get a copy of the GW list from the Honors advisement Center downstairs!)
I hope the MOA hunt was informative for you. But did you know that there are *more* great works categories than just Art? And that you have to write your GW papers on two different genres of Great Works? Yeah. You probably knew that.
Here's the thing. To write a paper about a great work, you not only have to know "tools" pertaining to the great work, you have to, like, *be exposed* to the great work. But there are a lot of great works. How do you pick?
So here's what I want you to do with our class time tomorrow (if you wear a costume while you do this, I will totally give you extra credit):
1) Obtain a copy of the Great Works list. You can get this from the student advisement center in the basement of the MSRB, or you can download it from online. Also, get a copy of the GW log, because that's where you keep track of all the GW stuff you're going to end up doing if you take Honors classes. Also, you have to have it for the Honors Portfolio assignment. (It can be prettymuch empty, it just needs to be there. But enough about that because it's a totally separate assignment!)
2) After you have the GW list, you need to *go* somewhere. Use the GW list to guide you. For example:
If you find that you're drawn to the theater/musical options of the list, go over to the HFAC, find out when stuff is playing; choose something you want to watch; maybe even buy your tickets. (You don't have to see anything *right then,* (unless you want to) but you want to be ready.)
If you want to do something sciency, walk yourself over to one of the science buildings. See if they have any special events planned. Talk to department offices or wander the halls looking for flyers. Find a professor and ask them if you can come observe a class. Make sure it will qualify as an item on the list, and then make arrangements.
If you're interested in film, ask the Honors advisement center which films from the international cinema count this year. Then find a schedule and choose a time you'll go to a movie. Or, you could just pick a film off the list and ask the library if they have a copy you can check out. Later, you can watch it with your peer review group and eat popcorn. Maybe even cuddle a little. And then never speak of it again.
On the other hand, if you are a lover of literature, you could go to the library and find the book you need to read. Also, find books *about* the book you need to read. Check them out and start reading.
There are other options, right? I can't remember right now because I'm spacey like that. Consult the list and figure out an appropriate place to go.
3) I need to know that you actually *did* this assignment and didn't just use the hour to do your math homework, so I'm going to need proof. Take a picture of yourself wherever you end up and send it to me along with half a paragraph about what you did. If you're wearing a costume, explain it to me in your email, too. (I don't always notice things I should. Like people dressed in bunny suits. Absent-minded professor thing.)
You can do this alone or in groups or in pairs or even with your girlfriend or a random stranger.
In fact, if you are wearing a costume AND you can convince a random stranger to do the WHOLE GW adventure with you, I'll give you five times the amount of extra credit I'd give you just for your costume. But they have to be *strangers.* Your roommate can't introduce you, they can't be friends of friends. They need to be random people you have never met in your entire life and you have to go up to them in the hall while you're wearing your costume and convince them to come with you. And you have to take a picture, of course. And also, tell us about it on Monday.
Have fun!
I hope the MOA hunt was informative for you. But did you know that there are *more* great works categories than just Art? And that you have to write your GW papers on two different genres of Great Works? Yeah. You probably knew that.
Here's the thing. To write a paper about a great work, you not only have to know "tools" pertaining to the great work, you have to, like, *be exposed* to the great work. But there are a lot of great works. How do you pick?
So here's what I want you to do with our class time tomorrow (if you wear a costume while you do this, I will totally give you extra credit):
1) Obtain a copy of the Great Works list. You can get this from the student advisement center in the basement of the MSRB, or you can download it from online. Also, get a copy of the GW log, because that's where you keep track of all the GW stuff you're going to end up doing if you take Honors classes. Also, you have to have it for the Honors Portfolio assignment. (It can be prettymuch empty, it just needs to be there. But enough about that because it's a totally separate assignment!)
2) After you have the GW list, you need to *go* somewhere. Use the GW list to guide you. For example:
If you find that you're drawn to the theater/musical options of the list, go over to the HFAC, find out when stuff is playing; choose something you want to watch; maybe even buy your tickets. (You don't have to see anything *right then,* (unless you want to) but you want to be ready.)
If you want to do something sciency, walk yourself over to one of the science buildings. See if they have any special events planned. Talk to department offices or wander the halls looking for flyers. Find a professor and ask them if you can come observe a class. Make sure it will qualify as an item on the list, and then make arrangements.
If you're interested in film, ask the Honors advisement center which films from the international cinema count this year. Then find a schedule and choose a time you'll go to a movie. Or, you could just pick a film off the list and ask the library if they have a copy you can check out. Later, you can watch it with your peer review group and eat popcorn. Maybe even cuddle a little. And then never speak of it again.
On the other hand, if you are a lover of literature, you could go to the library and find the book you need to read. Also, find books *about* the book you need to read. Check them out and start reading.
There are other options, right? I can't remember right now because I'm spacey like that. Consult the list and figure out an appropriate place to go.
3) I need to know that you actually *did* this assignment and didn't just use the hour to do your math homework, so I'm going to need proof. Take a picture of yourself wherever you end up and send it to me along with half a paragraph about what you did. If you're wearing a costume, explain it to me in your email, too. (I don't always notice things I should. Like people dressed in bunny suits. Absent-minded professor thing.)
You can do this alone or in groups or in pairs or even with your girlfriend or a random stranger.
In fact, if you are wearing a costume AND you can convince a random stranger to do the WHOLE GW adventure with you, I'll give you five times the amount of extra credit I'd give you just for your costume. But they have to be *strangers.* Your roommate can't introduce you, they can't be friends of friends. They need to be random people you have never met in your entire life and you have to go up to them in the hall while you're wearing your costume and convince them to come with you. And you have to take a picture, of course. And also, tell us about it on Monday.
Have fun!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Juliana's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"
A Critical Analysis of C.S. Lewis’ “What Christians Believe”
C.S. Lewis is considered to be one of the greatest Christian writers of all time and upon reading his essay “What Christians believe” it is easy to see why, as Lewis not only presents a compelling argument but also manages to entertain his audience whilst dealing with such a heavy topic. In his essay, “What Christians Believe”, C.S. Lewis artfully uses tone, false dilemmas, and appeals to his reader’s sense of logos to effectively persuade his educated religiously-diverse audience to support his view of Christianity.
One instance of Lewis’ masterful use of tone can be found at the start of the section titled “The Invasion” when Lewis writes “Very well then, atheism is too simple.” This is somewhat of an orienting statement as Lewis has just spent the last few paragraphs arguing against the concepts of atheism. However, this line does not only serve as transitioning sentence as the casual ton of “very well then” seems to imply a personal sense of finality, as if there is no more to be said on the subject. This casual conversational way of stating that one the strongest opponents against Lewis’ argument is simply wrong is very powerful as the personal tone brings it somewhat closer to the heart of the reader and the definiteness of the statement successfully convinces his mature and rational audience to dismiss the views held by atheists as false, which brings them closer to agreeing with his point of view.
Another instance in which Lewis uses his tone to persuade his mature audience to agree with his point of view on christianity can be found when he uses humor to create interest in his point and to make the ideas of his opponents seem laughable. He writes that for what those who believe Jesus to have been only a great moral teacher but not actually a God to be correct, Jesus would have had to have been “a lunatic-on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg” to have made the claims that he did. Through this he points out that for anyone to disagree with his point of view would be ridiculous . The contrast between his example of the man who thinks he is a poached egg with the gravity of his discussion of the truths of belief and religion is very stark, which implies that those who would make such an assertion are clearly misunderstanding reality. Through his clever use of sharp humor within the context of such an important topic Lewis effectively supports his theory that his point of view is correct and that anyone who believes otherwise is clearly mistaken.
Lewis not only uses his tone to persuade his readers of the truth of his perspective of Christianity, but he also employs the emotive fallacy of false dilemma to convince his readers of the truth of his argument. One example of Lewis‘ use of false dilemma can be found at the end of his essay where he writes that “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse”. This challenge to the reader is found just after Lewis reasons that for a man to have said the things that Christ did, especially in his time period, he was either completely insane or he was honestly the Son of God as he claimed, so those who argue that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the true Son of God must be wrong. This false dilemma, would suggest that Jesus could only have been one of two things: a saviour or a lunatic. By only allowing his readers to pick from these two narrow categories, though there may be other possibilities in reality, Lewis successfully narrows the chance of his audience disagreeing with him. In a normal situation, one could say “I sort of agree, but I think it is more like this...” whereas in the situation that Lewis has created one must either be entirely for Lewis’ argument or entirely against it. This effectively persuades people to side with Lewis concerning the situation that he has created.
Another such instance of Lewis’ clever use of false dilemma can be found in the very first paragraph of the essay when Lewis writes that “Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic there is only one right answer to a sum...” These words come right after Lewis states that becoming a Christian has left him more accepting of other religions in general but that in matters where Christianity and other religious doctrines differ, one must be right and the other, by default, must be wrong. The word “arithmetic” in this sentence is especially poignant as it connotes a very logical formula wherein there can only be one right answer. Not only does this appeal to a reader’s sense of logos, as naturally someone who considers themselves to be a logical thinker must naturally want to find the “correct” answer to a question of arithmetic, but it also creates a false dilemma in which there can only be one right answer. In reality there could potentially be any number of varying answers as no one can prove whether one is more correct than the other, however Lewis purposely creates a scenario in which there are only two options, right and wrong. This false dilemma pushes his readers to make a choice and decide what they believe, in doing this Lewis is effectively pressuring his audience to agree with him through his use of false dilemma.
Finally, Lewis appeals to his readers’ sense of Logos to persuade them to adopt his views of Christianity by never specifically stating exactly what he believes or what he thinks that they should believe, rather Lewis merely reasons out various points of doctrine and allows the reader to come to his own conclusion of what is right or wrong. This feature of Lewis’ writing is most prominent towards the end of his article, especially when he is discussing the issue of theodicy, or the problem that arises when we consider the the fact that despite Christianity’s claim that God is both good and omnipotent, evil still exists in the world. He explains his belief in terms of his reasoning and never outrightly states that he is correct, the reader is only expected to follow his logic and come to the same conclusion that he did. When describing his reasons he uses the words “probably” and “it may be quite sensible” to allow the reader some space to consider the ideas presented for himself and then to ultimately agree with these ideas. Thus the reader does not feel that he is being dragged into agreement with Lewis but rather through his own sense of logic it would seem to him that Lewis is right. Considering that those reading this essay are most likely at least moderately well educated and must show some interest in the validity of religion, it can be assumed that this tactic of relying on the reader to use their own reasoning to follow Lewis’ argument and arrive at the same conclusion would be rather successful.
Lewis’ appeal to his readers’ sense of logos can also bee seen in the way that he develops his arguments, as he typically starts with the illogical and then gradually works his way into resolving the seemingly unreasonableness of the problem through his logic and then at the end of the paragraph he summarizes what can be learned from this. For example on the last page of his essay he begins by putting forward many puzzling questions such as “What should we make of a man...who announced that he forgave you for stealing other men’s money?” then he slowly explains, what one “should make” of such a man until he arrives at the conclusion that “This makes sense only if He really was that God.” Through this, Lewis’ audience is led to feel that they are the ones coming to an understanding of the problem and yet it is really Lewis guiding them through the dilemma with his own logic. Therefore this sort of approach would appeal to a reader’s sense of logic not only because the reasoning itself seems to be solid, but because the reader almost feels as if he has come up with it himself and is therefore more likely to trust in it.
Therefore it can be seen that Lewis develops a very convincing argument for his educated and religiously curious audience regarding his beliefs concerning Christianity, God, and theodicy through the means of tone, false dilemmas, and his frequent appeals to a reader’s sense of logos.
C.S. Lewis is considered to be one of the greatest Christian writers of all time and upon reading his essay “What Christians believe” it is easy to see why, as Lewis not only presents a compelling argument but also manages to entertain his audience whilst dealing with such a heavy topic. In his essay, “What Christians Believe”, C.S. Lewis artfully uses tone, false dilemmas, and appeals to his reader’s sense of logos to effectively persuade his educated religiously-diverse audience to support his view of Christianity.
One instance of Lewis’ masterful use of tone can be found at the start of the section titled “The Invasion” when Lewis writes “Very well then, atheism is too simple.” This is somewhat of an orienting statement as Lewis has just spent the last few paragraphs arguing against the concepts of atheism. However, this line does not only serve as transitioning sentence as the casual ton of “very well then” seems to imply a personal sense of finality, as if there is no more to be said on the subject. This casual conversational way of stating that one the strongest opponents against Lewis’ argument is simply wrong is very powerful as the personal tone brings it somewhat closer to the heart of the reader and the definiteness of the statement successfully convinces his mature and rational audience to dismiss the views held by atheists as false, which brings them closer to agreeing with his point of view.
Another instance in which Lewis uses his tone to persuade his mature audience to agree with his point of view on christianity can be found when he uses humor to create interest in his point and to make the ideas of his opponents seem laughable. He writes that for what those who believe Jesus to have been only a great moral teacher but not actually a God to be correct, Jesus would have had to have been “a lunatic-on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg” to have made the claims that he did. Through this he points out that for anyone to disagree with his point of view would be ridiculous . The contrast between his example of the man who thinks he is a poached egg with the gravity of his discussion of the truths of belief and religion is very stark, which implies that those who would make such an assertion are clearly misunderstanding reality. Through his clever use of sharp humor within the context of such an important topic Lewis effectively supports his theory that his point of view is correct and that anyone who believes otherwise is clearly mistaken.
Lewis not only uses his tone to persuade his readers of the truth of his perspective of Christianity, but he also employs the emotive fallacy of false dilemma to convince his readers of the truth of his argument. One example of Lewis‘ use of false dilemma can be found at the end of his essay where he writes that “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse”. This challenge to the reader is found just after Lewis reasons that for a man to have said the things that Christ did, especially in his time period, he was either completely insane or he was honestly the Son of God as he claimed, so those who argue that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the true Son of God must be wrong. This false dilemma, would suggest that Jesus could only have been one of two things: a saviour or a lunatic. By only allowing his readers to pick from these two narrow categories, though there may be other possibilities in reality, Lewis successfully narrows the chance of his audience disagreeing with him. In a normal situation, one could say “I sort of agree, but I think it is more like this...” whereas in the situation that Lewis has created one must either be entirely for Lewis’ argument or entirely against it. This effectively persuades people to side with Lewis concerning the situation that he has created.
Another such instance of Lewis’ clever use of false dilemma can be found in the very first paragraph of the essay when Lewis writes that “Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic there is only one right answer to a sum...” These words come right after Lewis states that becoming a Christian has left him more accepting of other religions in general but that in matters where Christianity and other religious doctrines differ, one must be right and the other, by default, must be wrong. The word “arithmetic” in this sentence is especially poignant as it connotes a very logical formula wherein there can only be one right answer. Not only does this appeal to a reader’s sense of logos, as naturally someone who considers themselves to be a logical thinker must naturally want to find the “correct” answer to a question of arithmetic, but it also creates a false dilemma in which there can only be one right answer. In reality there could potentially be any number of varying answers as no one can prove whether one is more correct than the other, however Lewis purposely creates a scenario in which there are only two options, right and wrong. This false dilemma pushes his readers to make a choice and decide what they believe, in doing this Lewis is effectively pressuring his audience to agree with him through his use of false dilemma.
Finally, Lewis appeals to his readers’ sense of Logos to persuade them to adopt his views of Christianity by never specifically stating exactly what he believes or what he thinks that they should believe, rather Lewis merely reasons out various points of doctrine and allows the reader to come to his own conclusion of what is right or wrong. This feature of Lewis’ writing is most prominent towards the end of his article, especially when he is discussing the issue of theodicy, or the problem that arises when we consider the the fact that despite Christianity’s claim that God is both good and omnipotent, evil still exists in the world. He explains his belief in terms of his reasoning and never outrightly states that he is correct, the reader is only expected to follow his logic and come to the same conclusion that he did. When describing his reasons he uses the words “probably” and “it may be quite sensible” to allow the reader some space to consider the ideas presented for himself and then to ultimately agree with these ideas. Thus the reader does not feel that he is being dragged into agreement with Lewis but rather through his own sense of logic it would seem to him that Lewis is right. Considering that those reading this essay are most likely at least moderately well educated and must show some interest in the validity of religion, it can be assumed that this tactic of relying on the reader to use their own reasoning to follow Lewis’ argument and arrive at the same conclusion would be rather successful.
Lewis’ appeal to his readers’ sense of logos can also bee seen in the way that he develops his arguments, as he typically starts with the illogical and then gradually works his way into resolving the seemingly unreasonableness of the problem through his logic and then at the end of the paragraph he summarizes what can be learned from this. For example on the last page of his essay he begins by putting forward many puzzling questions such as “What should we make of a man...who announced that he forgave you for stealing other men’s money?” then he slowly explains, what one “should make” of such a man until he arrives at the conclusion that “This makes sense only if He really was that God.” Through this, Lewis’ audience is led to feel that they are the ones coming to an understanding of the problem and yet it is really Lewis guiding them through the dilemma with his own logic. Therefore this sort of approach would appeal to a reader’s sense of logic not only because the reasoning itself seems to be solid, but because the reader almost feels as if he has come up with it himself and is therefore more likely to trust in it.
Therefore it can be seen that Lewis develops a very convincing argument for his educated and religiously curious audience regarding his beliefs concerning Christianity, God, and theodicy through the means of tone, false dilemmas, and his frequent appeals to a reader’s sense of logos.
Ty's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"
Ty B.
Writing 150H, Winter 2012
Dr. Kerry Spencer
C. S. Lewis is perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, which is commonly known as a Christ allegory, but Lewis was actually a converted atheist. He struggled to rationalize his faith in many essays which are highly regarded in the academic and religious communities alike. This essay not only develops ideas central to what Christianity believes, but how Lewis came to believe them through basic logical arguments. In What Christians Believe, C. S. Lewis uses comparisons, such as metaphors and similes to effectively explain his thoughts on Christianity to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Lewis, in recounting his final argument for atheism before he finally accepted Christianity, likens knowing that the universe has no meaning to discovering that the universe was dark if we had no eyes to see. “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning” (177). This simple simile aids in Lewis’ explanation of the simplicity of atheism by showing that life would be meaningless to those who take part in it. Lewis’ mastery of logic was able to lead him to an explanation that not only comforts the minds of non-Christian readers, through avoiding argumentative language, but that appeals to the tenets of Christian theology, that we are here on this Earth for a purpose.
The complexity of Christian theology is exactly why it is so believable; Lewis argues that nothing is naturally simple; everything has a queer attribute, as part of nature. He explains this by comparing the other planets to Earth. “In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances [of the planets]; and some of them have one moon, one has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring” (177). The comparison of religion to the natural variety of the planets helps Lewis to explain why the utter absurdness of Christianity (at face value) is in fact a testament of the truthfulness of it. Everything that is part of this universe has a natural quirk, and the fact that Christianity is so different means it could not have been thought up, just as the vast differences between the planets could not have been thought up. This is often a train of thought that Christians tend to avoid, as a sort of blind faith technique, and though it could lead to doubts, Lewis uses it to strengthen his knowledge of the truthfulness of Christianity.
Christianity, Lewis explains, does inherently include the basics of the theory of Dualism (the explanation that the universe is a battleground between a Good force and an Evil force. “But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in life people are cruel for one of two reasons – either because they are sadists… or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it – money or power, or safety” (178). Although not a metaphor or simile, the reader can call to mind the cruel among the inhabitants of Earth, and understand that they are not an example of this force of Evil. They may be deceived or guided by this force, but they are inherently Good and even being cruel for money or power or safety is a Good thing, not an Evil thing. Lewis argues that Christians and non-Christians alike can see that the children of God are not placed on this Earth to do Evil, but that some fall away by the real power of Satan.
After explaining the theory of Dualism, and then debunking it, Lewis compares Christianity to a military operation within the Kingdom of Satan, or the Earth that we now occupy. “Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage” (179). This allegorical metaphor goes to show that the power of Satan (as the Evil force of Dualism) really is the power that inhabits this Earth, but that as a duty to our Heavenly Father, and rightful king, we need to accept Christ and engage in doing Good. Non-Christians may struggle with this point, but assuming the Christian idea of Sin and applying it to this world, it is not difficult to grasp that ‘Satan’ has real power over the hearts of men. Different denominations of Christianity may have different feelings on this point, but Lewis does an excellent job defending his reason logically.
Lewis uses a defiant child as an example of how this Earth could be in seeming turmoil and yet remain within the Will and Power of the Lord. “It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, ‘ I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.’ Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar, all lying in the grate. That is against her will” (180). Lewis uses this very relatable example to show, essentially, how there can be opposition against the Lord. This is an important doctrine of Christianity, especially for non-Christians to understand, because Heavenly Father does have real and true power, but it is not him that needs to ‘learn to keep the schoolroom tidy’, rather us, his children. The relevancy of this doctrine is not limited to non-Christians though, and Lewis is not only teaching them, he is using his new found faith and his soapbox to get Christians to understand the why behind Christianity as well.
The essay is effective in laying out what Christianity is step by step, as well as going in depth into why Lewis decided to forsake his atheism in favor of it. Both Christians and non-Christians can read the article and develop a greater understanding of why Christians believe what they believe, not only what it is that they believe. The understanding of the essay itself is dependent on the understanding of the many comparisons that Lewis makes, ultimately not unlike the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Lewis favors examples that people can relate to, and being the great thinker that he was he definitely hit the nail on the head.
Writing 150H, Winter 2012
Dr. Kerry Spencer
C. S. Lewis is perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, which is commonly known as a Christ allegory, but Lewis was actually a converted atheist. He struggled to rationalize his faith in many essays which are highly regarded in the academic and religious communities alike. This essay not only develops ideas central to what Christianity believes, but how Lewis came to believe them through basic logical arguments. In What Christians Believe, C. S. Lewis uses comparisons, such as metaphors and similes to effectively explain his thoughts on Christianity to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Lewis, in recounting his final argument for atheism before he finally accepted Christianity, likens knowing that the universe has no meaning to discovering that the universe was dark if we had no eyes to see. “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning” (177). This simple simile aids in Lewis’ explanation of the simplicity of atheism by showing that life would be meaningless to those who take part in it. Lewis’ mastery of logic was able to lead him to an explanation that not only comforts the minds of non-Christian readers, through avoiding argumentative language, but that appeals to the tenets of Christian theology, that we are here on this Earth for a purpose.
The complexity of Christian theology is exactly why it is so believable; Lewis argues that nothing is naturally simple; everything has a queer attribute, as part of nature. He explains this by comparing the other planets to Earth. “In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances [of the planets]; and some of them have one moon, one has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring” (177). The comparison of religion to the natural variety of the planets helps Lewis to explain why the utter absurdness of Christianity (at face value) is in fact a testament of the truthfulness of it. Everything that is part of this universe has a natural quirk, and the fact that Christianity is so different means it could not have been thought up, just as the vast differences between the planets could not have been thought up. This is often a train of thought that Christians tend to avoid, as a sort of blind faith technique, and though it could lead to doubts, Lewis uses it to strengthen his knowledge of the truthfulness of Christianity.
Christianity, Lewis explains, does inherently include the basics of the theory of Dualism (the explanation that the universe is a battleground between a Good force and an Evil force. “But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in life people are cruel for one of two reasons – either because they are sadists… or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it – money or power, or safety” (178). Although not a metaphor or simile, the reader can call to mind the cruel among the inhabitants of Earth, and understand that they are not an example of this force of Evil. They may be deceived or guided by this force, but they are inherently Good and even being cruel for money or power or safety is a Good thing, not an Evil thing. Lewis argues that Christians and non-Christians alike can see that the children of God are not placed on this Earth to do Evil, but that some fall away by the real power of Satan.
After explaining the theory of Dualism, and then debunking it, Lewis compares Christianity to a military operation within the Kingdom of Satan, or the Earth that we now occupy. “Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage” (179). This allegorical metaphor goes to show that the power of Satan (as the Evil force of Dualism) really is the power that inhabits this Earth, but that as a duty to our Heavenly Father, and rightful king, we need to accept Christ and engage in doing Good. Non-Christians may struggle with this point, but assuming the Christian idea of Sin and applying it to this world, it is not difficult to grasp that ‘Satan’ has real power over the hearts of men. Different denominations of Christianity may have different feelings on this point, but Lewis does an excellent job defending his reason logically.
Lewis uses a defiant child as an example of how this Earth could be in seeming turmoil and yet remain within the Will and Power of the Lord. “It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, ‘ I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.’ Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar, all lying in the grate. That is against her will” (180). Lewis uses this very relatable example to show, essentially, how there can be opposition against the Lord. This is an important doctrine of Christianity, especially for non-Christians to understand, because Heavenly Father does have real and true power, but it is not him that needs to ‘learn to keep the schoolroom tidy’, rather us, his children. The relevancy of this doctrine is not limited to non-Christians though, and Lewis is not only teaching them, he is using his new found faith and his soapbox to get Christians to understand the why behind Christianity as well.
The essay is effective in laying out what Christianity is step by step, as well as going in depth into why Lewis decided to forsake his atheism in favor of it. Both Christians and non-Christians can read the article and develop a greater understanding of why Christians believe what they believe, not only what it is that they believe. The understanding of the essay itself is dependent on the understanding of the many comparisons that Lewis makes, ultimately not unlike the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Lewis favors examples that people can relate to, and being the great thinker that he was he definitely hit the nail on the head.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ben E's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"
What Christians Believe
C.S. Lewis
First Year Writing 150H
Professor Spencer
In the world today it can be a difficult venture to help others to understand our religious beliefs. “What Christians Believe”, authored by C.S. Lewis, seeks to do just that by explaining what is accepted as truth to Christians according to him. He effectively does this by an appeal to logos and pathos primarily through the use of analogies.
The first instance where Lewis uses an analogy to convince his audience of his point is when he compares Pantheism and Christianity. He states the belief of Pantheist being that God is the universe and is a part of all of us. He then goes on to state the Christian view of God being that he created the universe and is separate to it, “…like a man making a picture or composing a tune” (176). This analogy is effective logically because it is an easy example that the reader can relate to. He later goes on to explain also that if you believe (as the majority does)in opposites - good and bad - then you believe more in the Christian view of God. So logically this analogy convinces the reader that Lewis is right and that there is a God, independent of creation and that there are good things and bad things in it. It is also an effective analogy because the image of a man making a painting or a tune gives the image of a great artist working a on a piece of artwork or a musician composing a masterpiece. Thus this appeals to those that see good and beauty in the world to more likely believe in what Lewis is portraying.
The next use of an analogy in the article is used to convince atheists by logic that there is a God. He says “A man feels wet when he falls in water, because he is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet” (176). He compares this to his own sense (and by extension other atheists) of justice in an unjust world. He logically explains that when he was an atheist he felt that there could not have been a God because the world was cruel and unjust. As he thought about it, he started to wonder where he got his sense of justice from. He then applies this analogy to show that because he knew there were injustices in the world there was meaning to life. So saying we are fish and don’t know we are wet is like saying we don’t realize there is meaning to life. This analogy is effect because for the reader to say they are like the fish and are ignorant of sense and meaning is almost like admitting they are stupid.
Lewis uses another analogy to help see how religion is complicated and not simple. He compares it to a table. He explains that looking at the table you may say that it is simple. However, he goes on to say that if you were to ask a scientist to tell you what it is made of and how it is made, the answer you would receive would be complicated and perhaps difficult to understand. This he puts in contrast to how people – those in particular he mentioned who would like to destroy Christianity – look at religion and complain that it isn’t simple. He goes on to explain that reality is complex and in his experience, odd. So it would be silly to ask for something more than simple and expect simplicity. His argument combined with his analogy logically helps the audience to be persuaded to his point of view that religion isn’t simple.
Another analogy that is used by Lewis is used to explain that things can happen that are contrary to God’s will. He compares this principle to a mother telling her children “I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own”(180). We know that as parents we set rules and guidelines for our children to follow and give them the opportunity act for themselves. We can expect that sometimes children will not be tidy and that is against their mother’s will but it also her will that left them free to be untidy also. This is what Lewis compares God to – a loving parent who asks us as His children to do what he says but leaves it to us choose. So this analogy effectively convinces the reader C.S. Lewis’ of his belief of God as it is logically shows, if God is good, how evil can happen in opposition to God’s will and also is effective as it plays on the emotions of the reader to think of their own mothers and build on the trust that they have for them.
An additional use of an analogy is used when Lewis compares Christianity to Dualism. His analogy shows how these two beliefs share the premise that the universe is at war between good and evil. He goes on to use the analogy that the Christian belief is “… a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of a universe occupied by the enemy. Enemy-occupied territory…”(179). This analogy is effective because it builds on the argument that he had previously argued with the reader, that the evil power or Satan is a corruption of good things and only has power given it by the good power or God. This appeals to pathos of the reader, particularly those who share Lewis’ view of Christianity and works to inspire them that they are in an epic battle serving their King – God – against the rebels.
The final analogy that the author has used to convince the audience of his argument is where he discusses the belief that there is no happiness other than the happiness that comes from following God. To persuade the reader he uses the analogy that human beings are like cars. He builds off of the point that since God created us then it only makes sense that the ‘gasoline’ that makes us work the best comes only from Him. He further goes on to say that it is useless to ask God for any other happiness aside from what he asks us to do because there is none. Therefore this analogy appeals to logos to sway the audience to his point of view.
Overall this is an effective article. As C.S. Lewis brings in new points, his use of analogies not only convinces his audience with logic but also plays on their emotions to make them trust his arguments further. This is all contributes to the paper’s obvious objective to make the reader believe in Christianity and fundamentally accept, ignore or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
C.S. Lewis
First Year Writing 150H
Professor Spencer
In the world today it can be a difficult venture to help others to understand our religious beliefs. “What Christians Believe”, authored by C.S. Lewis, seeks to do just that by explaining what is accepted as truth to Christians according to him. He effectively does this by an appeal to logos and pathos primarily through the use of analogies.
The first instance where Lewis uses an analogy to convince his audience of his point is when he compares Pantheism and Christianity. He states the belief of Pantheist being that God is the universe and is a part of all of us. He then goes on to state the Christian view of God being that he created the universe and is separate to it, “…like a man making a picture or composing a tune” (176). This analogy is effective logically because it is an easy example that the reader can relate to. He later goes on to explain also that if you believe (as the majority does)in opposites - good and bad - then you believe more in the Christian view of God. So logically this analogy convinces the reader that Lewis is right and that there is a God, independent of creation and that there are good things and bad things in it. It is also an effective analogy because the image of a man making a painting or a tune gives the image of a great artist working a on a piece of artwork or a musician composing a masterpiece. Thus this appeals to those that see good and beauty in the world to more likely believe in what Lewis is portraying.
The next use of an analogy in the article is used to convince atheists by logic that there is a God. He says “A man feels wet when he falls in water, because he is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet” (176). He compares this to his own sense (and by extension other atheists) of justice in an unjust world. He logically explains that when he was an atheist he felt that there could not have been a God because the world was cruel and unjust. As he thought about it, he started to wonder where he got his sense of justice from. He then applies this analogy to show that because he knew there were injustices in the world there was meaning to life. So saying we are fish and don’t know we are wet is like saying we don’t realize there is meaning to life. This analogy is effect because for the reader to say they are like the fish and are ignorant of sense and meaning is almost like admitting they are stupid.
Lewis uses another analogy to help see how religion is complicated and not simple. He compares it to a table. He explains that looking at the table you may say that it is simple. However, he goes on to say that if you were to ask a scientist to tell you what it is made of and how it is made, the answer you would receive would be complicated and perhaps difficult to understand. This he puts in contrast to how people – those in particular he mentioned who would like to destroy Christianity – look at religion and complain that it isn’t simple. He goes on to explain that reality is complex and in his experience, odd. So it would be silly to ask for something more than simple and expect simplicity. His argument combined with his analogy logically helps the audience to be persuaded to his point of view that religion isn’t simple.
Another analogy that is used by Lewis is used to explain that things can happen that are contrary to God’s will. He compares this principle to a mother telling her children “I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own”(180). We know that as parents we set rules and guidelines for our children to follow and give them the opportunity act for themselves. We can expect that sometimes children will not be tidy and that is against their mother’s will but it also her will that left them free to be untidy also. This is what Lewis compares God to – a loving parent who asks us as His children to do what he says but leaves it to us choose. So this analogy effectively convinces the reader C.S. Lewis’ of his belief of God as it is logically shows, if God is good, how evil can happen in opposition to God’s will and also is effective as it plays on the emotions of the reader to think of their own mothers and build on the trust that they have for them.
An additional use of an analogy is used when Lewis compares Christianity to Dualism. His analogy shows how these two beliefs share the premise that the universe is at war between good and evil. He goes on to use the analogy that the Christian belief is “… a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of a universe occupied by the enemy. Enemy-occupied territory…”(179). This analogy is effective because it builds on the argument that he had previously argued with the reader, that the evil power or Satan is a corruption of good things and only has power given it by the good power or God. This appeals to pathos of the reader, particularly those who share Lewis’ view of Christianity and works to inspire them that they are in an epic battle serving their King – God – against the rebels.
The final analogy that the author has used to convince the audience of his argument is where he discusses the belief that there is no happiness other than the happiness that comes from following God. To persuade the reader he uses the analogy that human beings are like cars. He builds off of the point that since God created us then it only makes sense that the ‘gasoline’ that makes us work the best comes only from Him. He further goes on to say that it is useless to ask God for any other happiness aside from what he asks us to do because there is none. Therefore this analogy appeals to logos to sway the audience to his point of view.
Overall this is an effective article. As C.S. Lewis brings in new points, his use of analogies not only convinces his audience with logic but also plays on their emotions to make them trust his arguments further. This is all contributes to the paper’s obvious objective to make the reader believe in Christianity and fundamentally accept, ignore or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
We're Starting the RFIW Articles!
To remind you, here is the process:
1) There is one article per week listed on the course calendar.
2) You read the article.
3) Over the weekend, you go to the blog and see that I've posted student analysis papers.
4) You choose at least ONE paper to comment on.
5) When you leave your comment, you can comment on the article, you can comment on the analysis, you can give revision ideas, you really have a lot of freedom.
6) Everyone will post ONE analysis paper during the semester. If you don't know what article you're writing your analysis paper on and/or you don't know the due date of your blog paper? Email me.
7) If your paper is the one posted on the blog, you do not have to leave any comments that week. But you are welcome to.
8) Email me with questions.
1) There is one article per week listed on the course calendar.
2) You read the article.
3) Over the weekend, you go to the blog and see that I've posted student analysis papers.
4) You choose at least ONE paper to comment on.
5) When you leave your comment, you can comment on the article, you can comment on the analysis, you can give revision ideas, you really have a lot of freedom.
6) Everyone will post ONE analysis paper during the semester. If you don't know what article you're writing your analysis paper on and/or you don't know the due date of your blog paper? Email me.
7) If your paper is the one posted on the blog, you do not have to leave any comments that week. But you are welcome to.
8) Email me with questions.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Snow progress report
Going to be a little late to my 10am class, but on my way. Get yourself into groups according to your "tool" speciality. Prepare a list of the most important terms to present to class. Wish me luck getting there!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
MOA Hunt Tomorrow!
So, all week I told y'all in class that tomorrow was the MOA hunt. When I actually *looked* at the calendar, it said it was supposed to be next week. Which really makes more sense, because you don't need to know Art terms until the GW paper, which is what we're talking about next week. But, oh well. I'm going to go with what I told you in class. I updated the calendar to match.
So tomorrow! MOA hunt!
It's a simple game. On Blackboard, you'll find a list of "Art Terms." (It may be named something like, "Art terms in case you do your GW paper on Art." It's just a paper with art terms and definitions. It was compiled by the Tate Britain, not me, so blame them for their fancy English.) I think it's under "Critical Analysis Aids," which is under "Course Materials." Wait... I'll check... OK. Yeah, it's there.
What to do with art terms: at the MOA (Museum of Art in case you hadn't figured it out), find a piece of art that illustrates each of the "tools." You can do this alone or in groups. You'll probably be able to finish the whole list in 50 minutes--there might be one or two that there aren't any examples of. You don't need to spend longer than 50 minutes if you don't finish, but if you only have two terms done, it's kinda obvious you didn't really do anything, so that could hurt your grade. You'll turn in your list of examples for credit by midnight. If you do it at some other time than our class period, as long as you get your list to me by midnight, I'll never know.
AN UNRELATED NOTE:
You get credit for having a rough draft of each paper by the day of the ICPP for that unit. Some people turned in drafts, but most didn't, which makes me think it was unclear somehow. I'll modify the calendar. You can have till the next ICPP (next week I think? or maybe the one after that?) to turn in your Wiki rough draft, since I didn't clear it up before now.
Any questions about the activity or anything else, email me.
So tomorrow! MOA hunt!
It's a simple game. On Blackboard, you'll find a list of "Art Terms." (It may be named something like, "Art terms in case you do your GW paper on Art." It's just a paper with art terms and definitions. It was compiled by the Tate Britain, not me, so blame them for their fancy English.) I think it's under "Critical Analysis Aids," which is under "Course Materials." Wait... I'll check... OK. Yeah, it's there.
What to do with art terms: at the MOA (Museum of Art in case you hadn't figured it out), find a piece of art that illustrates each of the "tools." You can do this alone or in groups. You'll probably be able to finish the whole list in 50 minutes--there might be one or two that there aren't any examples of. You don't need to spend longer than 50 minutes if you don't finish, but if you only have two terms done, it's kinda obvious you didn't really do anything, so that could hurt your grade. You'll turn in your list of examples for credit by midnight. If you do it at some other time than our class period, as long as you get your list to me by midnight, I'll never know.
AN UNRELATED NOTE:
You get credit for having a rough draft of each paper by the day of the ICPP for that unit. Some people turned in drafts, but most didn't, which makes me think it was unclear somehow. I'll modify the calendar. You can have till the next ICPP (next week I think? or maybe the one after that?) to turn in your Wiki rough draft, since I didn't clear it up before now.
Any questions about the activity or anything else, email me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)