“Space”, the dark frontier, the infinite void, unexplored, inexplorable. Man’s concept of the universe is not an infinitely large one, it is most certainly much closer to nonexistent. It is only a recent “advance” in thinking that “space” is mostly nothing with a few lifeless balls of fire and debris. Only recently, are the planets only stone, and the stars just burning gas. Not long ago, Planets moved in Spheres with the Earth as the center, not as the most important, but as the lowest. Every other direction was up. Those Spheres would make music on a cosmic scale, singing to their Creator, as the planets in their orbits would dance to their music.
Modern science cannot detect anything but electromagnetic waves coming from the stars, so they claim they are lifeless blobs on a dark background. To be sure, they can’t detect anymore from you. No, The stars sing in the Heavens! They harmonize, wheeling round in perfect obedience to their master, shining His light in the night, in an ever unfolding dance so perfectly choreographed, by The Perfect King of it all.
No, my friend, the Heavens are not void, but full of testimony of God, the Infinite Creator of us all.
"Paul is..."
"There’s a funny thing about humans. They only read what interests them.
People wouldn’t keep reading books over and over through the years if
they were bored to tears by them."
"The reason we still read about ever-questioning Socrates in the works
of Plato is that it is interesting, and it still has something relevant
to say to us 2300 years later."
"That being said, the greatness of books and their writers is determined
by their influence over time and across the world."
"The most widely distributed and read book in the world is the Bible.
It is truly a great piece of literature. I’s 66 books are split into two
“halves”, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Of the 27 books in the
new testament, Paul of Tarsus wrote 13, possibly 14 of them. "
"Paul was born in Tarsus, as Saul, and became one of the Jewish
Pharisee sect, and would have studied the Old Testament extensively.
Paul was also a roman citizen, and his knowledge of philosophy shows
itself all throughout his writing."
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this
age? (1Corinthians 1:20)
His structure and logic is brilliant. Most every paragraph stars with
“but, now, so,” or “therefore,” so characteristic of philosophic language."
"His epistolary style is rich with imagery, and he employs visuals as mnemonic systems to aid in memory. In his letter to the Ephesians, after making six main points, he provides the image of the armor of a soldier.
Therefore put on the full armor of God… Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6, 13-17)."
“Memory,” says Cicero, “is the firm perception in the soul of things and words” (De invention, I, vii, 9) and Paul does that expertly."
Mona starts off by telling us where she was during the infamous Virginia Tech school shooting. We immediately remember where we were, what we were doing when we heard the news. While she has us thinking with her, she tells she felt anger, and we feel it with her. Already, by the end of the first paragraph, Mona has touched the pathos of our emotions.
She goes on to call to mind other, equally horrible shootings, and shows that there is a common theme to them all. We would expect that such horrible crimes are committed by the devils of humanity, for the cruelest of reasons, but we are surprised, and our souls are deeply disturbed by what she is suggesting. These “outcasts” of society are generated by society and are doing these things for fame. A man has two things that are his and his alone; Life, and a name, the former which is fleeting, and the latter which more often than not passes away silently with the first. People will kill to be remembered. It reminds you especially of Achilles in Homer’s Illiad, where he chose fame over a long life. Recalling to mind a verse I wrote:
“A Mortal has but life and name,
Long life or e’erlasting mem’ry gain
‘Twas Achilles choice to choose;
Fore’er in mem’ry, but life to lose”
The main point of her essay is that the media is giving them the fame they desire. What disturbs the soul the most is that what makes the popular media popular is the people. The middle class audience with multiple TVs and about a computer per person, with the paper delivered to their door cannot but take another look at themselves. If a plead for fame, no matter how horrible, is presented right, we are persuaded by the media not only to answer the request, but encourage the next person that it’s worth it.
She gives an exhortation for the media to stop encouraging indirectly(or directly, depending how you look at it) current and potential killers. This exhortation is also directed at us.
Mona gets you to feel emotion with her so you keep reading, and connect with her logic on a deeper level so you feel as if her thoughts are your own. She clearly portrays shootings in a light that pulls us closer to her argument. Presenting us with stories that create questions, she then answers them for us. She then takes us to the point of the article and shows us that we are personally greatly responsible. We are transported out of ourselves by the very act of being transported quite into ourselves. This is sublime, and is good rhetoric.
Reading this Essay reminds me immediately of the book that started the year, Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, and after reading ten books this class, I am fully In agreement with the title of the book that wraps the year up in Great books, Ideas really do have consequences.
“Genius, it is said, is born and does not come of teaching”.(On the Sublime, Ch.2) It essentially comes from nature, not art. But nature is both improved and checked by art, “for genius needs the curb as often as the spur.” (Ch.2) Genius unchecked strays into superfluous grandeur, and unspurred fails to move us. Sublimity walks hand in hand with subtlety. The audience should not be conscious that they are being influenced, and should feel as if they are thinking along with the orator. “The true sublime naturally elevates us: uplifted with a sense of proud exaltation, we are filled with joy and pride, as if we ourselves had produced the very thing we heard” (Ch.7) What Longinus terms as sublimity is what the orator ultimately aims at. Rhetoric is the art of creating the circumstances conducive to persuasion, clearing the obstructions, literary goo gone, if you will. Persuasion happens most easily when the audience aren’t caught up with personal prejudices, and when it feels that the thoughts of the speaker are their own. “The effect of genius is not to persuade the audience, but to transport them out of themselves”. (Ch.1) The Orator should appeal to the whole man, the intellect, emotions, and soul of the auditor. The audience will truly be transported out of themselves, if they are transported into themselves. The golden rule for composing speeches is “know your audience”, and to be sublime is to make them know their selves also. When presented with themselves they can then think for themselves, and thus persuasion is possible.
A great example of Sublimity is Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. He creates characters so like us, that we think alongside them, and we feel we think for them. He transports you out of yourself, and only then you can you look back and see yourself, and be transformed.
In the study of rhetoric, there are three things you can appeal to; Logos, which is logic, Ethos, which is ethics or morality, and Pathos, which is the appeal to the emotions. These make up the entire human being, and thus Rhetoricians of old said to appeal to the whole man. I was reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and I noticed that each of the three brothers correspond to the three appeals of rhetoric. We begin the book meeting Ivan, who is a rationalist, Dimitri, who is a sensualist, and Alyosha a monk, who is a moralist. Dostoevsky speaks to the whole man, not just the intellect, like a technical manual, or to the emotions, like a soap opera, but to the mind, heart, and soul of the reader. The conflicts between the three characters ring familiar the conflict inside us. I learned a lot about myself, while reading. The situations and episodes are unlike most anything that I’ve experienced, but he presents them in a way most like everything. He creates a reality quite real. A part of me left me when I finished the book, because it affected the whole of me. I was almost sad to leave a world so real. I think I may go visit again sometime. :-)
Posts
All Comments
