Rhetorical Analysis - 1431 Words

Rhetorical Analysis Raina Kelley covers societys issues and cultural controversies for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.’s. In her article â€Å"Beauty Is Defined, and Not By You† aims to convince her readers that women success or not is not depends on beauty. â€Å"When I’m on m deathbed, I hope to be smiling in satisfaction about all I accomplished, not that I made it to 102 without any cellulite.† One of her goals is to remain all girls do not get influence by this society, just be brave and continue to reject that beauty is the only way to get ahead. Kelley used personal experiences, facts and examples, also counter argument to create a convincing argument. This is an article from â€Å"The Daily Beast†, an American news reporting and opinion†¦show more content†¦She also used the situation most of the women might experienced, â€Å"I’m sorry, if you are older than 30 and your feelings get hurt by strangers commenting on the thigh sizes of 14-year-olds in a magazine, you need to toughen up.† She let the readers know that, there is something that we cannot control, we just have to face and trust that beauty would fade but succeed would never change. In this article, we can see that Kelley is really stands on what she believes are right. She is proud of what she achieved in her life. â€Å"And I, for one, am not going to spend my life worrying about when to start Botox treatments. When I’m on my deathbed, I hope to be smiling in satisfaction about all I accomplished.† She also asked the readers to be brave and fright back. â€Å"Yes, people can be vicious in their categorization of women’s looks. Insult them back or ignore them.† And Kelley created a very professional personal impression to the readers, â€Å"And yet I somehow managed to graduate from Yale, find a job I sometimes like, and miracles of miracles, get married and have a kid.† It shows that how she does not a beauty woman to this society, but now she is successful and has all things that most of the women want to have. Also, in the middle of the paper, she stated a point that we need to get healthy, not get liposuction. She used her own experience to support her view. â€Å"Getting healthy is the reason I’m onShow MoreRelatedThe Tipping Point: Rhetorical Analysis Essay813 Words   |  4 PagesThe Tipping Point: Rhetorical Analysis Throughout The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell explains to his reader his ideas about drastic changes in society, and how they seem to occur so rapidly. In this particular selection, Gladwell emphasizes the purpose of â€Å"connectors†, saying that they have a â€Å"special gift for bringing the world together (page 38)†. Gladwell states that part of the reason information or trends spread like wildfire is the presence of a specific group of people. They are called â€Å"connecters†Read MoreRhetorical Analysis Of The Death Of The Moth And On Keeping A Notebook 1427 Words   |  6 Pages19, September, 2014 9th Ni Device Use Analysis Rhetoric devices are often used by writers to clarify ideas, emphasize key points, or relate insights to the reader. In both â€Å"The Death of the Moth† and â€Å"On Keeping A Notebook, † the authors heavily rely on such devices to get their points across to the audience, and these devices help strengthen overall theme the authors want to communicate. Though several may argue that Didion’s use of metaphor and rhetorical question compliment her essay very wellRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Reagans Farewell Address1653 Words   |  7 PagesThe Usage of Rhetoric in Ronald Reagan’s â€Å"Farewell Address† Due to the rapidly changing America, in his farewell address, Ronald Reagan expresses the need for unification of America, and America’s culture. In Reagan’s address, he uses many rhetorical devices to advance his purpose of unifying America, for instance, Reagan utilizes tone, syntax, and pathos to portray his pride, hopefulness, and patriotism for America. He uses these devices to show Americans of the unification America needs. ThroughoutRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Lesson In Hbos The Newsroom715 Words   |  3 Pagesis even used in classrooms for the powerful rhetoric that is used in it. In Will McAvoy’s speech on â€Å"The Newsroom†, McAvoy uses a variety of rhetorical devices such as Anthypophora, Asyndeton, and Dysphemism to convey the message that America is not the greatest country in the world anymore. First, Anthypophora is one of the three most effective rhetorical devices used in this powerful speech. Anthypophora is when the speaker asks a question, but instead of letting someone answer, the speaker immediatelyRead MoreRhetorical Analysis of Ellen DeGeneress Commencement Speech Essay1144 Words   |  5 Pages Ellen’s Commencement Speech Rhetorical Analysis Graduation caps fly into the air, cheers erupt, and diplomas are received. This is a typical graduation day. Not only did these ceremonial events take place for Tulane Universitys class of 2009, but Ellen DeGeneres was there to congratulate them as well! This class was dubbed the Katrina Class for being survivors of the devastating Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Katrina was named one of the deadliest Hurricanes, causing more than 1,836Read MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Martin Luther King Jr.976 Words   |  4 Pagespopulation? In all of the speeches, one way or another, Dr. King used several different rhetorical devices in order to defend his own actions. In specific, two of his speeches, â€Å"I have a Dream† and â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham Jail† Dr. King used the rhetorical devices of anaphora, allusion, and diction to relay his thoughts of what is right, and also as a way to build a common ground with his audience. Though the rhetorical devices are share d between the two speeches, there are also several differences.Read MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Andrew Sinek s Ted Presentation1263 Words   |  6 Pagesstock that s going in the opposite direction—down—from the most desired direction—up. This is a provocative opening that engages the audience right away. 2. Ask a series of rhetorical questions. A common way to engage the audience at the start is to ask a rhetorical question. Better still, start with a series of rhetorical questions. A good example of this tactic is Simon Sinek s TED presentation. He starts with: How do you explain when things don t go as we assumed? Or better, how do you explainRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of A Life Beyond Do What You Love 1020 Words   |  5 PagesIn his New York Times article â€Å"A Life Beyond Do What You Love† Gordon Marino poses the question But is do what you love wisdom or malarkey? after giving us an anecdote about students coming to him for career advice. The article which uses many rhetorical devices which make the audience think about their choices in careers and what you should and want to do. The author also cites different sources for his article and past life experiences. Marino then end his article by saying many great leadersRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of A Life Beyond D o What You Love Essay2042 Words   |  9 Pagesuse of rhetorical devices. Dr. Marino is a very highly educated philosopher who earned his Ph.D. at University of Chicago, M.A. university of Pennsylvania, and B.A. Columbia University. He typically publishes to the New York Times, for his writing mostly appeals to all people because so many can relate to this article. Marino effectively argues that sometimes individuals must sacrifice their passions to provide for their loved ones using rhetorical devices, hypophora, anecdote, rhetorical questionsRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Rhetorical And Rhetorical Analysis1188 Words   |  5 Pages1. Rhetorical Analysis is the careful examination of texts, videos, and images to understand how they function in conveying their message. The definition of rhetorical analysis will help me better understand what I should be looking for when I receive a text, as rhetorical analysis is different than literary analysis. Therefore, the devices for each are also different (Lunsford et al. 88). 2. Intended audience is the initial step to any rhetorical analysis. If you are unable to identify an audience

Goshen College Admissions SAT Scores, Admit Rate, More

Three Varieties of Knowledge- a Critque Free Essays

Donald Davidson- Three Varieties of Knowledge Submitted By: Nathan Copeland- 500349268 Submitted to: Prof. Checkland PHL550 April 15, 2013 In Donald Davidsons Three Varieties of Knowledge, he sets out to more or less prove that â€Å"A community of minds is the basis of knowledge; it provides the measure of all things. † (Davidson, 218). We will write a custom essay sample on Three Varieties of Knowledge- a Critque or any similar topic only for you Order Now This is done by first categorizing knowledge into three distinct categories. There is knowledge of ones own mind, knowledge of another’s mind, and knowledge of the shared physical world around us. He argues that no one could exist without the others. According to Davidson, knowledge of ones own mind differs from the other two types of knowledge in the sense that one knows the contents of their own mind without any study or evidence in most cases. On the other hand, the minds of others and the physical world may only be interpreted through the senses, at least initially. He also notes that certain aspects of our physical world can be interpreted almost instantaneously, our example being distinguishing colours, while many aspects of another’s mind contents are done through physical observation of actions and words, which we then reconcile with our own knowledge to make inferences. This makes the latter two types of knowledge open to a degree of uncertainty that is rarely experienced in matters of your own mind. He also acknowledges the asymmetry that is apparent between coming about knowledge of our own minds and knowledge of other minds. They are both minds, yet we come to understand our own in a very unique way. He criticizes the solution that the actions and behavior or others is sufficient for inferring certain mental states to others, but those same actions and behaviours carried out by our selves are irrelevant when we attempt to describe ourselves. An issue being- If both types of knowledge come about so differently, how can we believe that others mental states are comparable to our own. He sets out to paint a picture that includes all three types of knowledge, and shows how they are related in hopes of solving these issues. Davidson claims that â€Å"what we could not do is get along without a way of expressing, and thus communicating, our thoughts about the natural world† (Davidson, pg. 208). He also proposes that in order for a creature to have a belief, they must also posses the idea of objective truths. He then draws on Wittgenstien to say that â€Å"the source of the concept of objective truth is interpersonal communication† (Davidson, pg. 209). This is based on the assumption that thought cannot exist without language. Davidson argues that without the distinction between objective truth and what one thinks to be the case, there is no thought at all, and since there cannot be objective truth without the confirmation on the correct use of words through communicating, there cannot be thought without communicating, in his example language. It is argued that in order for communication to work, the speaker and interpreter must share an understanding of what is meant by what is being said. Davidson then uses an example of how one would go about learning a new language to illustrate how we come about having an understanding of the words we use. In this case, we assign words and sentences we know in our native tongue to the utterances and actions made by a foreign speaker. With trial and error we come to understand what is meant by these utterances and how they relate to ‘reality’. This process of connecting ones own thoughts with the thoughts of another through some aspect of the external world is regarded by Davidson as triangulation. â€Å"it takes two points of view to give a location to the cause of a thought, and thus define its content† (Davidson, pg. 213). He believes this to be the only way that one can know another’s mind or the external world, making the two mutually dependent. He points out that there is the limitation of perception at play here, with no way to look in from outside the standard to see if its write, but we may consult a third and forth party and so on to lessen the chance of an error being made. Davidson, pg. 217) Davidson then goes on to say that â€Å"knowledge of the propositional contents of our own minds is not possible without the other forms of knowledge, since there is no propositional thought without communication† (Davidson, pg. 213). Furthermore, knowledge of others cannot be inferred unless we have kn owledge of ourselves, as the process of coming to know another’s mind is done by matching evidence from others behaviour to our knowledge of our own, thus showing that knowledge of our own minds and others is also mutually dependent. He acknowledges that there are a great deal of possible ways that we could assign our native language to the language and behavior of another to come about an understanding. He relates this to the measurement of weight in the sense that no matter what system you use for measurement; kilograms, pounds ounces, etc. , the invariable factor, in this case the actual weight of the object, is the fact of the matter, not the arbitrary units of measure. His point is that there will likely always be indeterminacy in our translations, but we will often get the general idea. He also believes that there are no strict laws that connect mental states with physical ones, stating that such laws can exist â€Å"only when concepts connected by the laws are based on criteria of the same sort† (Davidson, pg. 215). This all leads to the fact that we will never be able to agree on how sentences and thoughts should be structured to describe other sentences or thoughts, as the very process of discussing how we would do this is ultimately done with the very thoughts were discussing, leaving it perpetually open to interpretation. As such â€Å"A community of minds is the basis of knowledge; it is the measure of all things. It makes no sense to question the adequacy of this measure, or to seek a more ultimate standard. † (Davidson, pg. 218). Analysis I agree with the general idea of what Davidson is saying, with a few exceptions. I would agree that ‘advanced’ knowledge can only come about with the all three types of evidence, but I also believe that basic knowledge can be acquired by just a person and the observable world. Suppose I live in a world with no other living creatures. I have no formal language. If I walk across a bed of sharp rocks, my nervous system will say â€Å"ouch†, and it wont take long to figure out that sharp rocks hurt my feet. I am aware of this with no need to confirm with another. I am also in contention with the idea that â€Å"language is essential to thought† (Davidson, pg. 209). My dog ‘thinks’ its going for a walk every time I put my boots on. I suppose that may be considered language, or some may argue that my dogs actions have no thought, but it seems to me that to make such a claim demands more evidence. I also had an issue with the claim that â€Å"enough in the framework and fabric of our beliefs must be true to give content to the rest† (Davidson, pg. 214). Although I agree that ‘enough’ of our beliefs are true, I don’t see this as a necessary condition. What if everything we think is wrong, or we’re a brain in a vat. The claim is overly definitive for my liking. Going back to my ‘only creature’ idea, I find the statement â€Å"there is no propositional thought without communication† (Davidson, pg. 213). Perhaps on this lonely planet I have a rock, which I am in love with. I may possess the thought, as primitive as it may be, that I love this rock. We don’t communicate, but the thought remains. This may be argued as a feeling, not a thought, but I’m not sure I know the difference. Finally, I have another idea that is in opposition to Davidsons claims, although I’m not sure if I believe it myself. He seems to think there are three distinct categories of knowledge, with knowledge of ones self coming mostly from inside, and knowledge of the world and others minds coming indirectly. My idea is this; all of the thoughts, behaviors, desires etc. , of any living creature is merely a manifestation of very complex processes happening in our brains. Our brains are chemicals and axons and neurons and much more that we are not 100% about. I’m proposing that theoretically, if we can observe the brain all the way down to each and every atom, we could see how your brain looks for any given idea, memory, feeling, and document the physical state relating to each and every instance. The only difference between the three states is how we go about knowing them, and with this theory we could even come to know our own minds without having to think internally about how we feel, but by merely observing our brains. Tying this back to my ‘alone in the world’ scenario, if I had the capability to observe my own brains inner workings while feeling the mental manifestations of such neurological reactions, I could correlate the pictures with feelings the ame way we correlate others words with objects in the world. If I became well enough versed at this, I could then look at the brain of someone else whom I’ve never seen, and come to know their mind as well. This theory is in contradiction with Davidson’s statement that there are no strict laws that connect mental states to physical ones, but even he acknowledges that this topic â€Å"has understandably been found inconclusive by critics† (Davidson, pg. 216), myself included. How to cite Three Varieties of Knowledge- a Critque, Papers

Arab Israeli Wars Essay Example For Students

Arab Israeli Wars Essay Sincethe United Nations partition of PALESTINE in 1947 andthe establishment of the modern state of ISRAEL in 1948,there have been four major Arab-Israeli wars (1947-49,1956, 1967, and 1973) and numerous intermittent battles. Although Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1979,hostility between Israel and the rest of its Arab neighbors,complicated by the demands of Palestinian Arabs, continuedinto the 1980s. THE FIRST PALESTINE WAR (1947-49)The first war began as a civil conflict between PalestinianJews and Arabs following the United Nationsrecommendation of Nov. 29, 1947, to partition Palestine,then still under British mandate, into an Arab state and aJewish state. Fighting quickly spread as Arab guerrillasattacked Jewish settlements and communication links toprevent implementation of the UN plan. Jewish forcesprevented seizure of most settlements, but Arab guerrillas,supported by the Transjordanian Arab Legion under thecommand of British officers, besieged Jerusalem. By April,Haganah, the principal Jewish military group, seized theoffensive, scoring victories against the Arab Liberation Armyin northern Palestine, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. British militaryforces withdrew to Haifa; although officially neu tral, somecommanders assisted one side or the other. After the Britishhad departed and the state of Israel had been established onMay 15, 1948, under the premiership of DavidBEN-GURION, the Palestine Arab forces and foreignvolunteers were joined by regular armies of Transjordan(now the kingdom of JORDAN), IRAQ, LEBANON, andSYRIA, with token support from SAUDI ARABIA. Effortsby the UN to halt the fighting were unsuccessful until June11, when a 4-week truce was declared. When the Arabstates refused to renew the truce, ten more days of fightingerupted. In that time Israel greatly extended the area underits control and broke the siege of Jerusalem. Fighting on asmaller scale continued during the second UN trucebeginning in mid-July, and Israel acquired more territory,especially in Galilee and the Negev. By January 1949, whenthe last battles ended, Israel had extended its frontiers byabout 5,000 sq km (1,930 sq mi) beyond the 15,500 sq km(4,983 sq mi) allocated to the Jewish state in the UNpartition resolution. It had also secured its independence. During 1949, armistice agreements were signed under UNauspices between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, andLebanon. The armistice frontiers were unofficial boundariesuntil 1967. SUEZ-SINAI WAR (1956) Border conflictsbetween Israel and the Arabs continued despite provisions inthe 1949 armistice agreements for peace negotiations. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who had leftIsraeli-held territory during the first war concentrated inrefugee camps along Israels frontiers and became a majorsource of friction when they infiltrated back to their homes orattacked Israeli border settlements. A major tension pointwas the Egyptian-controlled GAZA STRIP, which was usedby Arab guerrillas for raids into southern Israel. Egyptsblockade of Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf ofAqaba intensified the hostilities. These escalating tensionsconverged with the SUEZ CRISIS caused by thenationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian presidentGamal NASSER. Great Britain and France strenuouslyobjected to Nassers policies, and a joint military campaignwas planned against Egypt with the understanding that Israelwould take the initiative by seizing the Sinai Peninsula. Thewar began on Oct. 29, 1956, after an announcement that thearmies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were to be integratedunder the Egyptian commander in chi ef. Israels OperationKadesh, commanded by Moshe DAYAN, lasted less than aweek; its forces reached the eastern bank of the Suez Canalin about 100 hours, seizing the Gaza Strip and nearly all theSinai Peninsula. The Sinai operations were supplemented byan Anglo-French invasion of Egypt on November 5, givingthe allies control of the northern sector of the Suez Canal. .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .postImageUrl , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:hover , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:visited , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:active { border:0!important; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:active , .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6 .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u6ad8974edc1a281fbfa68e3aa5d3fdb6:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Kant: The Universal Law Formation Of The Categorical Imperative EssayThe war was halted by a UN General Assembly resolutioncalling for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of alloccupying forces from Egyptian territory. The GeneralAssembly also established a United Nations EmergencyForce (UNEF) to replace the allied troops on the Egyptianside of the borders in Suez, Sinai, and Gaza. By December22 the last British and French troops had left Egypt. Israel,however, delayed withdrawal, insisting that it receive securityguarantees against further Egyptian attack. After severaladditional UN resolutions calling for withdrawal and afterpressure from the United States, Israels for ces left in March1957. SIX-DAY WAR (1967) Relations between Israeland Egypt remained fairly stable in the following decade. TheSuez Canal remained closed to Israeli shipping, the Arabboycott of Israel was maintained, and periodic borderclashes occurred between Israel, Syria, and Jordan. However, UNEF prevented direct military encountersbetween Egypt and Israel. By 1967 the Arab confrontationstatesEgypt,