Blog Post 7：ARCS chapter 7. RT, Anonymous, pp. 492-502

ARCS chapter 7

This chapter mainly focuses on pathos and emotional appeal. I find it interesting when Aristotle said emotions are “those things through which, by undergoing change, people come to differ in their judgments” (p. 175). I quite agree with this definition of emotion because in my personal experiences, I have encountered similar examples; those who are angry at me tend to have opinions differ from those who are not angry. That is when I realize how emotion can change people’s judgment towards things or people. Personally, I think emotion can lead people towards inaccurate assessment about events that happened in their lives because having emotions like anger or fear may create prejudice or bias which blind people’s eyes and take them away from the truth. One example I can think of is victim’s family tend to blame for the suspect because they are triggered by hatred and sadness of their loved one’s death, but that doesn’t prove that suspect is the murderer, nor does it mean the suspect deserves severe penalty. I also find it interesting that “emotion seem to be a means of reasoning” (p. 175). I can also find examples for this concept from real life, like if a parent feels joyful having her child around, she may keep being nice to the child until she spoiled him. It is interesting how emotion guide our actions. This makes me wonder whether people can still process their reasoning or action if they don’t have emotion because as the chapter discussed, emotion has “heuristic potential” (p. 175). Though I know it’s impossible for people to not have any emotion because we are all mortal beings, but if thinking involves expressing emotion, and emotion triggers biased thoughts, then it is possible that people’s beliefs and actions are biased results. But I don’t think that people always experience very strong emotions so that they are always irrational, because people only experience strong emotion when others stimulated them (no one feels angry or fearful or sad all the time unless they are psychotic). I don’t think that all emotions stimulate biased thoughts either, some thoughts are triggered by emotion but they are truthful beliefs or concepts. Like when Aristotle said that “emotion can change people’s mind” he is telling the truth because we can apply this idea to all personal life experiences, but he may have made up this idea while he was confronting some emotions. I also feel interesting about the three criteria for understanding how emotions are aroused (p.176). These three criteria include knowing the state of mind of the person, who will be triggered by emotions, and what can trigger these emotions. I think that these criteria are almost like steps towards manipulation that do not always bring good effects, especially in rhetoric. I remember in the movie The Girl Interrupted, Lisa knows Daisy’s secret emotions and she pushed her over the edge and Daisy killed herself. Even though I don’t think it is that easy to know one’s deepest thoughts or state of mind, I still think the rhetors should know how great the effect of these criteria can bring before they use them. I believe that rational thoughts or reasons can reduce the effectiveness of emotional appeal because if you know the reasons or purpose behind the emotional appeal, your emotions won’t get aroused so easily. For instance, you know that a commercial ad’s purpose is to attract consumers, thus you won’t easily trust the emotional effects in the ad, or get persuaded to buy the product.

RT, Anonymous, pp. 492-502

This reading includes the principles of letter writings. The basic styles for letters are written composition, metrical composition, rhythmic composition, and prose composition. There are five parts of a letter; they are Salutation, the Securing of Goodwill, the Narration, the Petition, and the Conclusion. The reading mainly focused on principles of Salutation and Securing Goodwill. I find it interesting if a Ruler is sending the Pope a letter, he had to mention the God’s name like the Lord or the Christ in the beginning of the letter, which is unusual in normal letters. I also think it’s interesting that any letter that is written by a Pope, an emperor, or to a Monk, the Christ’s name and the church’s name also need to be mentioned. Although these formats are unique and interesting, I can rarely use them in daily life because I’m not a ruler or a Pope, so I would say these formats are not that useful to me. I also think it’s interesting that both the lord or the high class people, and the servants need to use polite language in the starting of a letter. If a Lord is writing his servant a letter, he needs to start with “Loyal” servant or “devoted” follower. Likewise, a servant needs to call his master “his most beloved” lord. These manners are polite but sound a lot like flattering to me, which is interesting. I think that nowadays people who hold higher positions in a company also need to use respectful language in Salutation while writing letters to their subordinates, especially while discussing business affairs, but the language modern people use will not be as flattering as the words that ancient people(emperors, lords, servants…etc) use.

Blog Post 6: RT, Boethius, PP. 486-491

RT, Boethius, PP. 486-491

In the article An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, Boethius explained three species of rhetoric; they are judicial, demonstrative and deliberative. He also talked about the subject matter for rhetoric which is a civil question. In addition, he talked about five parts of rhetoric; they are invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. He discussed the six parts of rhetorical oration; they are the introduction, the argument, the partition, the proof, the refutation and the peroration. Boethius said that an orator’s goal is not just to deliver a speech but to persuade his audience. He talked about constitution and status and part of the case (the subject of matter).

My reaction to this short article is that this article is easy to understand. I feel like Boethius focused a lot on elements that are required for rhetoric including formats and purpose of oration, which is kind of similar to Aristotle because Aristotle also discussed different elements within oratory. However, I find Boethius much easier to understand than Aristotle and Socrates. I find the three kind of oratory (demonstrative, deliberative, and judicial) very practical because I realize that nowadays people still use these three kinds of rhetoric in their speech. A lawyer may use judicial in a court since it deals with justice issue. Environmentalists may deliver a speech that in demonstrative rhetoric since he needs to tell the public what is good for the environment. When countries discuss about warfare and military supports, they may involve deliberative acts. I realize the five parts of rhetoric and the six parts of orations are also useful because you could apply them to your daily life affairs, like writing a paper and building up an argument. All in all, what Boethius introduced in this article are not very interesting, because I feel like I already know about them in real life, but they are indeed very useful tools for modern rhetoric.

Blog Post 5: ARCS Chapter 6. RT, Medieval Rhetoric, Intro, pp.429-449. Augustine, pp. 450-485.

ARCS Chapter 6

This chapter focused on character and ethical proof. There are two kinds of ethical proof; they are invented ethos and situated ethos. One thing I think is interesting is Quintilian’s argument that a bad person could never become a respected orator because a good rhetor needs to maintain its good characters in order to persuade his audience. I kind of disagree with this argument because I think that sometimes a person’s outstanding power and persuasiveness can still make up effective speech. Hitler is a good example, he is a bad guy but he is a very powerful speaker with his authority and military power. Though, I do agree that if bad people are to become orators, it will lead to destructive social impact. This is because the evil orator will persuade his audiences to do bad things. I also disagree with the idea that “an ethos was not given by nature but was developed by habits” (p. 149). This is because I think biological or genetic factors do play a role in the development of ethos. I think that genetic factors contribute to the formation of one’s personality because recent study has found that babies can recognize actions that fall into good and bad categories, thus it is possible people are born to know the idea of good and evil. I am also interested in Aristotle’s list of three possible ethical mistakes. The second ethic mistake was “through forming opinions rightly they do not say what they think because of a bad character” (p. 152). When I was reading it, this idea immediately reminded me of a guy I know, he had such a bad character that you easily mistaken him as the villain, my point is even when you know he has a right point, you still cannot accept the way he acted on it because his bad attitude is intolerable. This also reinforce the importance of good character development, because would it matter if you are really good if you don’t ever show it? Lastly, I think that sometimes achieving goodwill is the hardest thing to do. Cicero said in the chapter “goodwill could be won if we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance, if we weaken the effect of charges that have been preferred, or of some suspicion of less honorable dealing which has been cast upon us; if we dilate on the misfortunes which have befallen us or the difficulties which still beset us” (p. 159). I think really there is no way to stop arrogance or other vices when they come, again even if you are trying to be good, sometimes life just disappoints you and you can’t help but feeling all the negative feelings inside. I think on this point Cicero is a lot like Plato because they are both claiming about virtuous ideologies are just too good (too unrealistic) to be true.

RT, Medieval Rhetoric, Intro, pp.429-449. Augustine, pp. 450-485.

The reading mainly introduced Augustine and his book On Christian Doctrine. The first three books introduced how to understand Bible and how to tell the truth. The first book talks about blessedness and that God can cure people’s impurities if they follow his words. In Book2, Augustine talked about the purpose of words is to inform what people’s thoughts and knowledge. In the same chapter, Augustine also talked about the four kinds of interpretive problems; they are unknown literal, unknown figurative, ambiguous literal, and ambiguous figurative signs. I find it interesting that in the fourth book, Augustine said that “A preacher ought to consider that he is talking on something of little weight, and so should express himself not in the moderate or in the grand style, but in the subdued style” (p.471). I do agree that a priest should be careful of what they say because they need to follow the God’s words but I know very little of how actual priests really behave these days; and I doubt that all priests talk in the same subdued way to different people. I also find it interesting that Augustine said “For the man who speaks wisely and eloquently, but lives evilly, he is unprofitable to his own soul.” I do agree with this idea and I do think that an evil orator will not keep his career long because his evil doings are the opposite of the things he said and this can ruin his reputation and credibility.

Blog Post 4: ARCS chap5, RT, Cicero, pp.283-338

ARCS chap5

The chapter has indicated the four methods for rhetoric; they are scientific demonstration, dialectic, rhetoric, and false reasoning. Rhetorical reasoning mainly involves human action and belief. False reasoning involves appeals that are widely accepted. This chapter also discussed the ideal of probability, deductive argument, inductive argument and enthymemes. Lastly, the chapter illustrates the use of examples, analogy, signs and maxims.

One thing I agree with is the idea that “there are little certain within human senses or the realm of human actions” (p.121). I agree with it because I also believe that human judgments or human senses are uncertain as much as they are unreliable. One example from real life can be a promise; it is possible somebody promised to help you with cleaning your classroom but didn’t show up, so you will have to do all the cleaning yourself. I also find it interesting that false claims or illogical arguments exists frequently in enthymemes. Take an example from the book, on page 126, it said “Men have the power in Hollywood, that’s why there are so few good roles for older actresses.” I noticed that this statement has used false claim because it ignored men who are willing to find good roles for older women. I realize that such claims appear in daily dialogues whenever people want to express their opinion or their biased opinion, because they don’t pay attention to whether their thinking or saying is weak or lack of consideration. I think people make mistakes while talking not only because they haven’t think logically but also because the way they think and talk forces them to express message automatically so they are less likely to be aware of the accuracy or correctness of the message they are expressing.

Another concept I consider interesting is logicians’ idea that “the relations between classes and the particulars were a fundamental element of human thinking” (p. 123). According to my understanding of this statement, human thinking is based on classes thus it requires people to act on classification; in another words, if people do not have any ideas (or classified ideas) in their mind they will not be able to think. I kind of agree with this statement because if I do not classify hamburgers as belong to the food category, then I would not think of it as I try to pick up the option for my dinner.

Lastly, I think that the use of analogy is important. Just like the use of similar and contrary examples, analogy can support or enhance a statement by comparing different people or events. For example, if you are arguing against illegal elephant slaughtering, you may say “imagine your own species are being killed.” In this statement, I compared elephant slaughtering with the idea of human killing. The two issues deal with two different species but both issues are facing moral violation; hence the analogy reinforces the statement that we should not slaughter elephant because just like we should not kill people such action is inhumane.

RT, Cicero, pp.283-338

The reading mainly covers the three books of De Oratore. In book 1, both Crassus and Antonius discussed the importance of natural ability. Crassus also talked about Greco-Roman rhetoric curriculum and Roman laws. In book2, Antonius defined the scope of rhetoric; he, like Socrates, also said rhetoric is neither art nor knowledge, but something relies on delusions and falsehood. Antonius also pointed out the ways to develop people’s rhetorical ability, which is to let them imitate good rhetorical models and practicing law suits and theories. In book 2, Antonius also discussed rational appeals, ethical appeals, and emotional appeals. In book3, Antonius talked about rhetoric styles, correctness, and appropriateness.

One thing I find interesting in this reading is the prevalence of jealousy (p.333-334). It is said in the reading that jealousy came by vice and wrongdoing, arrogance and disdain (p.334). I agree with this idea because if you are jealous of other people, it is likely you are a very biased person, because you think you deserve good prosperity without putting any efforts or hard works. This actually reminded me of one of my friends. She was incredibly jealous of other people so she blamed on others for her misfortune. She thinks that she deserves other people’s compassion because she doesn’t get to have what everybody has. I believe that she holds some very biased opinions because just because you don’t get what everybody has doesn’t make everybody the one to blame. So I think it is a big key to learn how to control your emotion in rhetoric. It is unlikely you will make a just argument when you are compelled by jealousy as well as other strong emotions. 

Blog Post 3: ARCS chap4, & RT, Aristotle pp. 169-240

ARCS chapter4

For this chapter, I think it’s interesting that sometimes Aristotle’s idea of degrees, conjectures, and possibilities can overlap with each other. I realize that in many cases the three topics have connected with past and future prediction or assumption. One example listed in the chapter is “he might be a bad leader in the past but now he is a good leader, and he might be a better leader in the future.” This example not only applies to degree (which measure how great or lesser the leader’s value in the past and future), but also involves conjecture (which predicts whether he is a good leader in the past and will be a good leader in the future) and possibilities (whether it’s possible for him to be a bad leader in the past and a good leader in the future).

This chapter also discussed the idea of common place and ideology. I think it’s interesting that the reading discussed how ideology is related to degree; it said “the power of an ideology is measured by the degree to which it influences the beliefs and actions of relatively large groups of relatively powerful people” (p. 97). It also said in the same page that “Ideologies that are subscribed by large groups of people are called dominant or hegemonic” and the ideologies of small groups are called minority (p.97). According to these descriptions, I think that ideology might be one of the factors which cause inequality, racism as well as other unbalanced social phenomenon. It is because different ideologies are maintained by different groups including racial and gender groups, groups that are bigger or have more people may have more power over the small groups on the sense of ideologies or ideological sense of existence. The three measurements (conjectures, degree and possibilities) may also contribute to social inequality as much as ideology does. This is because if people don’t keep any measurements or hold any standards for other people, especially for those who hold different ideologies from them, they won’t create a social structure that suppresses or persecutes minority groups. I think one reason minority groups are still under domination, suppression or the process of assimilation is because the group they belong to has fewer supporters (by which I mean people who hold the same ideology within the group). Gay discrimination is a good example, gay people are widely unaccepted or rejected by many societies or career fields not because they hold bad or unworthy qualities, but because they hold fewer supporters or power than the heterosexual groups; and that’s how heterosexual groups can have a say about gay people are bad, unworthy and abnormal. If you think about it, laws can be considered as ideology because they are believed by people who think serious crime is evil and unjust. In my opinion, some ideologies are beneficial such as laws because it helps maintain what we call justice, but on the other hand, ideologies reinforce social inequality because there can never be equal amount of people within communities that subscribe different ideologies. This reading about commonplace and ideology is interesting because it helps analyzed some small elements (commonplace, ideology, value measurements) that can bring up large social issues like social inequality.

RT, Aristotle, pp. 169-240

The reading illustrated and analyzed Aristotle’s rhetoric. In book 1, Aristotle discussed his philosophical rhetoric, such as enthymeme, maxims(statements), examples, artistic and inartistic proofs, ethos, pathos and logos, four kinds of governments (democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy), ethical appeals, motivation, written laws and equity. Book two talks about ethical and pathetical appeals, and four lines of argument (the possible and impossible, fact past, fact future and degree). Book three covers the importance of delivery, prose style (appropriateness, correctness, clearness and metaphors), the importance of statement, proof, and epilogue. I really like the way Aristotle said “anyone is your judge whom you have to persuade” (p. 219). I think that what he said is very true because you can’t just expect that everyone have the same perspective, yet sometimes you just find you are in a group where everybody believes the same idea, thus when you are against one person you are against the whole group. Moreover, I really agree with what he said about “just is not always beneficial” (p. 227). This remind me of execution, bystanders might think it’s just to put a criminal to death, but this case will not appear justly to the criminal’s family and friends, nor it will appear as just to the criminal himself. I think Aristotle’s rhetoric is very use-worthy, because he not only taught what methods people should use to argue and persuade, but also introduce moral lectures to audiences (what is the right and appropriate direction to argue). 

Blog Post 2: ARCS, chap3. The Rhetorical Tradition: Plato, pg 80-168

ARCS, chap3

Summary

According to Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, Stases is defined as the place where two rhetors can agree what they disagree. The chapter also shows sometimes it’s difficult for rhetors to agree on the point of disagreement, especially in issues like child abortion, rhetors and their opponents may argue right past each other because they don’t like to meet each other on the same ground; rhetors prefer to support their own positions rather than counter-argue their opponents’ view-points. In addition, the chapter indicates the idea of theoretical questions and practical questions. Theoretical question refers to questions that address the origins and natures of things (p. 60). Practical questions are questions that involve proposed actions (p. 60). Practical questions involve the reasons behind the actions and results of the actions. The chapter also defined general and specific questions. General questions deal with political, ethical or philosophical matters, while specific questions relate to smaller or more detailed problems like actual people, places and events. General questions require a broader knowledge and thus more research works. Differently, specific questions need personal decisions, private reflection and a little hand-on research. Usually, a person will consider a general question first before he consider about the related specific question. The chapter reveals the level of generality of a question depends on ethical factors as well as rhetorical situations (audiences, settings, audience’s feeling, concerns and others). The chapter gives four questions which help rhetors find the point where they agree to disagree and prepare an argument. They are conjecture, definition, quality, and policy. Conjecture is the questions determine whether an idea or thing exists. Definition is the questions about classification of the thing or idea. Quality helps determining whether the rhetor and his audiences agree about the value of the thing. And finally, policy is to ask what should be done in the rhetorical situation.

My reaction:

The idea of Stases has reminded me of my argument with people I met in my life. I totally agree that it’s difficult to find Stases or the point where you can agree that disagree. Just like the chapter said, I think sometimes you are so eager to win a debate you frequently support your own opinion and you just don’t want to exchange positions with your opponents to look for a solution, because that way you wouldn’t have won the debate. This brings a lot of unnecessary confusion and frustration (just like the book has discussed). I remember one time I failed to find peace with my dad, I was too angry to even think of a solution with him, I yelled about what I think is right over and over again, instead of trying to think in his situation. He on the other hand was smart and waited for me to calm down so we could talk (a way of reaching agreement with me). I think that if two people are both able to talk and think straight when it comes to a conflict or fight, it will make it a lot easier to find an agreement on something they disagree. Take my own example, I was being childish, uncooperative and unwilling to talk when arguing with my dad, that is why it takes so long to solve our issue. If only I can keep calm and try to persuade him that his position is not so workable, the fight might not last or grow into a bigger one. I noticed that everyone in my life has used bad ways to argue or persuade such as shouting at their opponent about their opinion, and sometimes violence. It makes me think of how little we have cared or paid attention to other people’s lives and perspectives, and instead how we have weighed a great deal about our own lives.

The Rhetorical Tradition: Plato, p. 80-168

Summary

The reading mainly includes two major parts, Gorgias and Phaedrus. Gorgias depicts an argument between Socrates with his friends (Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles); they argued about the value of rhetoric. In the first argument, Gorgias said rhetoric is beneficial because it gives the power to convince anyone including the experts. Socrates countered this idea by asking Gorgias to define the concept of art and justice. Socrates said rhetoric is not an art but a skill to persuade; and he believed rhetoric is not at all good for men because it made speech about unjust. Then Polus defended Gorgias’s argument by saying that rhetoric is good for rhetors because it enables them to get what they want. Socrates then countered Polus by saying rhetoric enables people to seek pleasure instead of good virtue, thus is unbeneficial and harmful. Lastly, Callicles challenged Socrates by stating that treating others unfairly is not an evil act if the orator has the power to do so; rhetoric can enhance orators’ power by exploitation. Socrates countered Callicles by saying a man’s strength are enriched by his goodness, thus pursuing pleasure, an act which destroys one’s goodness, may weaken one’s strength. That is why rhetoric is unbeneficial. In Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus talked about orator’s effort to persuade is similarly manipulative to a lover’s persuasion. Both orators and lovers will get morally affected while trying to please and persuade for their benefits and desires. In addition, Socrates said such persuasion is wrong and unjust because it involves a more powerful being working to rule over the inferior one. In addition, Socrates and Phaedrus argued that the persuasion exposes true knowledge and belief is the kind that fights against the power of the superior and the desire to seek pleasure. In order to achieve this persuasion, teachers need to raise the student up to the teacher’s level, while the student needs to make sure not to bring the teacher down to his inferior level. Socrates and Phaedrus tried three speeches (regarding love) in order to create this kind of persuasion. In the speeches, Socrates defined the difference between “persuasion to belief” (the bad rhetoric) and “persuasion to knowledge” (the rhetoric that only brings good). Socrates said rhetors will need to discover the truth first before they create a persuasion to knowledge; to find the truth, the orator need to do some analytic and synthetic works, and apply them to rhetoric itself.

My reaction:

According to the reading, I realize that in both Gorgias and Phaedrus, Socrates focused its rhetoric on goodness and virtue. In speech, addressing virtues and goodness can empower an argument, just like Socrates did. In real life however, good souls don’t always win, when the situation puts one’s life at stake, even strong and good people surrender or retreat to pursuing pleasure and profits. Especially on one’s career, the person cannot always show that he or she dislike the idea of doing bad. Assume you work at office, you will have to listen to your boss regardless he or she is treating you fairly because you know otherwise he or she may fire you, and your life will be miserable without a job and salary. Everyone thinks about their own benefit before they consider about the well-being of others because if you cannot take care of yourself you cannot take care of anybody. In that case, if Audrey Hepburn doesn’t have any money, she hardly will establish Children’s Fund to help poor kids, and what is the use of good virtue if one does not have the ability to practice it? I recall that Aristotle has once said “money is evil”, just like Socrates said in the reading that rhetoric is harmful, yet I doubt anybody in this world can live without money or the attempt to earn more profits for himself, whether it’s by persuasion or exploitation or act on authority. That is why our world is unbalanced and problematic, but it can never be so pure as Plato and Socrates defined; there’s not just white and black, good and evil, but a middle ground where it works for everybody. 

Blog Post#1： Kairos, Gorgias, and Dissoi Logoi

   According to Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students chapter 2, Kairos is a very useful tool for developing effective rhetoric argument. Kairos refers to the time period when opportunities take place for rhetors to take advantage of them. In order to create effective rhetoric, rhetors need to pay attention to opportunity and catch it before it slips away. In order to do so, rhetors will need to do research and know about the histories and different situations about certain issues, so that when the opportunity comes, they are prepared to talk about or write about the issue in every way. To ensure an effective argument, rhetors also need to be aware of the urgency of the issue (whether the issue suits the current situation and audiences), power dynamic (opinions of different groups or parties), and additional problems related to the issue. Personally, I agree that Kairos is a crucial element for successful rhetoric, because without a good timing and the right audience, the rhetor cannot make a compelling and well-expressed argument. I remember one time I confronted an unsuccessful rhetorical situation due to the lack of rightful timing and suitable audiences. I was sharing my favorite movie to my high school classmates, but I did not know their best interests at heart (I was unprepared and did not do any research on my audiences). As a result, my classmates were not convinced that the movie is a good one, thus none of them wanted to watch it. I believe that good capture of Kairos not only benefit people through their careers, but also help people solve problems from their daily life.

   Chreia is defined as a brief saying or action that makes a point (p. 52). The chapter also includes the amplification of Chreia as well as a few examples. I feel connected to Isocrates’ saying that “The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits” (p. 53). This Chreia sounds reasonable and common for everyone who pursues knowledge. As an example, in order to learn about rhetoric, I will have to read 20 pages out of my textbook, which process is bitter, but the outcome is sweet because I eventually learned something valuable.

   From page 42 to 46 in the Rhetorical Tradition, the reading mainly covers Gorgias’s background and his argument that Helen is not to blame. Gorgias was born in Leontini in Sicily. He has traveled to many places to teach rhetoric during his life time. He has argued that Hellen is not the one to blame for the war and the damage of Troy, because her kidnap was predetermined by God, and forced by her lover. Gorgias argued that Hellen was raped and deceived by the prince of Troy, thus she is not blamable but instead unfortunate and the victim from the story. I think that many of Gorgias’ argument in Hellenism are very considerate for Hellen, as if these arguments start out from a woman’s perspective. These arguments are very similar to today’s law that protects women’s right and benefits. I think it’s interesting even in ancient centuries, rhetoricians constructed arguments that protect women.

   According to Dissoi Logoi (p. 47-55), the author talked about the definitions of good and bad, seemly and shameful, just and unjust, truth and falsehood, wisdom and moral excellence. I find it interesting that on page 49, the author indicate that “it’s seemly for a boy in the flower of his growth to gratify a respectable lover, but it’s shameful for a handsome boy to gratify one who is not his lover.” This saying reminds me of the novel Unbearable Light of Being, because in the novel the boy has gratified both a respectable lover and someone who is not his lover. It is interesting because then he should be considered both seemly and shameful, which proves the statement on page 49 “the same thing is both seemly and shameful.” And it appears that a man can be seemly and shameful at the same time.

   This reading also embodies the idea of just and unjust. The narrator said if someone try to kill himself using a sword, it’s just to steal the sword even if it means to commit the crime of stealing (p. 51). I find this statement arguable because to others it might seem unjust to let the man kill himself, but the man may think it’s unjust for himself if he can’t die because he wanted it. People hold different and opposite views towards the same situation, so it’s difficult to make decisions that satisfies everyone’s needs. This section reminds me of Game of Thrones. In season 4, Tyrion has killed his father because his father wanted to kill him, it’s arguable whether Tyrion’s action is just or not. I would say it’s just that Tyrion stopped his father from killing him (because he was trying to fight back the social persecution and unjust), but it is also unjust that Tyrion has murdered a man to protect himself, and most of all that was his father.