For the Sake of All Humanity!: January 2012

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Life of the Closed Mind

The general argument made by Anna Quindlen in her work, Life of the Closed Mind is that ever since the terrorist attack from September 11, we have all become “polar” (page 67). We either think that there’s only good and bad. More specifically, Quindlen argues that we are only looking at things that we believe in, rather than exploring other views. She writes, “Since September 11 we’ve become more like them. The essence of the way zealots think about the world has only two views: good and evil, holy and profane, them and us” (page 67). In this passage, Quindlen is suggesting that we have hardened ourselves to only think a certain way, rather than opening up our minds to listen to what others have to say about what they believe in. In conclusion, it is Quindlen’s belief that we have all shut our minds off when it comes to listening to others and won’t give ourselves a chance to have a change of mind.

In my view, Quindlen is right because we have all been petrified by what the terrorists did to our people and our country. For example, when the Trade Center fell, it was absolutely horrifying that something like this could happen to America; the freest country in the world with numerous opportunities and big dreams. Once this terrifying event happened, the people’s thoughts are now full of two absolute conclusions about opinions. We really are thinking like “them”. However, because we are afraid of “them”, or that certain ethnicity that attacked us, it shouldn’t mean that we ought to be hateful towards every person that is a part of the Middle Eastern race. It was the people of al-Qaeda who were involved in this heinous act. Although Quindlen might object to my view on the Middle Eastern people, I maintain my opinion because I’m trying hard not to be closed minded like many other people might be. Therefore, I conclude that people need to stop being so narrow minded on the Middle Eastern culture and start seeing that it’s a group of people that ruined the reputations of others and gained that infamous title of “terrorists”.

Argument In a Culture of Discord

Argument in a Culture of Discord

The general point made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argument in a Culture of Discord, is that the world sees arguments as a heated discussion, rather than bringing up points that others haven’t considered. More specifically, Cioffi suggests that students often times shut down when it comes to writing argumentative papers because they don’t believe that they are passionate enough to have a clashing debate over an issue. He writes, “Our media do not provide a forum for actual debate. Instead they’re a venue for self-promotion and squabbling, for hawking goods, for infomercials masquerading as news or serious commentary” (page 63). In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that we should change that and show people that they need to make counterarguments because it would make the topic more difficult, and it “forces the author to go somewhere new” (page 64). In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that we need to get away from what the media thinks arguing is, and really get to the heart of “true intellectual discourse” (page63).

In my view, Cioffi is right because the media has tricked us to think that arguing does consist of fired up debates that offers only two sides to an issue: for it or against it. For example, people see the controversial issue on gay marriage as either you embrace the idea, or you don’t. How can anyone only support one side? Certainly not everyone agrees with each argument made on the side they support. Although Cioffi might object that people can’t always just agree with everything on one side of the argument, I maintain that arguments shouldn’t just only have two sides. There are always going to be proposes that people aren’t going to agree with no matter what side they’re on. Therefore, I conclude that arguments should not be just about butting heads together about a topic, rather we should discuss ideas that have never been thought about before so we can take these issues to the next level.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Why Engage in Political Thinking?

The general argument made by Glenn Tinder in his work, Why Engage in Political Thinking? is that we need to create thoughts and continually think. More specifically, Tinder argues that our society is against thinking, and there are two “forces” (page 15) that influence us: action and our curiosity for cold hard facts. He writes, “… Thinking… is often remarked that [it] is hard work… products of thought is intangible and often fragile… A thinking person is exceedingly vulnerable.” (Page 15) In this passage, Tinder is suggesting that our thoughts can be changed in an instant because of the influences of others. In conclusion, it is Tinder’s belief that our society needs to start thinking and produce ideas like the great minds of Aristotle and Socrates did long ago.

In my view, Tinder is right because thoughts can be changed ever so quickly because of what another person might say. We need to start thinking more often in our day-to-day lives. We Americans want facts nowadays. We want to know everything that’s going on behind closed doors. However in order to know these facts, we must think to ask such questions. For example, our Founding Fathers thought about creating a constitution for our free country, and thanks to their countless thoughts, they were able to create a constitution that protects the citizens of the United States. That’s how we have our answers—through the process of thinking and producing thoughts. Although Tinder might object to my example, I maintain that thoughts are what provide the answers to our curiosity. Therefore, I believe that thinking is beneficial and can get us to our final destination of demanded facts and answers.

A Method for Reading

A Method for Reading, Writing, and Thinking Critically

The general point made by Kathleen McCormick in her work, A Method for Reading, Writing, and Thinking Critically, is that there are more than right or wrong opinions, answers, or two sides to a story. More specifically, McCormick argues that “…As a country, we do not possess a wide spectrum of ways to adequately understand or negotiate complex positions… Differences are most often discussed [as]… absolute right and wrong, black and white; there is a clear winner and loser.” (Page 21) In this passage, McCormick is suggesting that there are grey shades in differences and positions, rather than have only one or the other. In conclusion, it is McCormick’s belief that we need to think more critically and stop seeing things in only two ways, instead of not paying attention to the details.

In my view, McCormick is right because there are many details in positions rather than right and wrong. Oftentimes, it’s hard to see the grey areas in something because we are so fixed in a way of thinking that something is either one way or another. For example, some people are pro-life (meaning they are against abortion), while others are pro-choice (which believe in women’s rights) in the controversial issue, abortion. Although McCormick might object that abortion does have absolute sides, I maintain that there are deeper details in every opinion or stand. Therefore, I conclude that I do agree with McCormick that there is more to an opinion than the rigid reasons of right or wrong.