Blog 3

Asimov's "Intelligence" does not touch on language once. The purpose of this selection was to open the eyes of the reader to the view of intelligence in the world. Our world has always viewed intelligence as the wealth of knowledge of academic things. Our society does not hold people with, lets call it "street smart", as those of high intelligence. Asimov wanted to point out that just because someone can score high on an academic exam does not indicate that they are intelligent people. Through personal experience I have found this to be quite a true statement, as many of my friends, while able to score remarkably on exams, could not do such simple things as changing motor oil. This is a prevalent observation throughout all of the world.

I failed to see where Asimov's "Intelligence" discussed language as a topic.

Something interesting that Sedaris observed about language was that "Understanding doesn't mean that you can suddenly speak the language"(295). What this states is that just because one studies and learns how to speak and translate a language does not mean they understand all the colloquialisms and subtle phrases that come with speaking the language daily. I myself took Russian in high school and at Binghamton, and only through speaking it daily with native speaking friends did I become fluent in the language. Sedaris points this out very well.

While Asimov did not discuss language, Asimov and Sedaris both made the point that simply learning is not enough. Real world experience is necessary to gain a greater understanding of anything.

Blog 2

a. One of my favorite sections of McCloud was where he discussed the aspect of self image. He writes, "Each one also sustains a constant awareness of his or her own face, but this mind-picture is not nearly so vivid; just a sketchy arrangement...a sense of shape...a sense of general placement" (McCloud 207). I particularly like this quote because it gives interesting insight to our own self images. Is it possible to see ourselves in such vivid detail as those around us can see? Or is it only possible to have this rough sketch of ourselves etched in our minds? What this quote explains is that while each and every man and woman and child has an awareness of themselves; a general idea of what they look like; they are simply that. They are general awarenesses, not full understandings. We cannot see in such vivid detail what we look like at all times. This quote is also quite symbolic, in the sense of self image in how we are perceived as people by others. While my self image might be that of someone who is confident and happy, another may interpret my image as weak and depressed. This is why McCloud points out that we only have a general idea of our self image, but not a fine detailed view.

b. Logical fallacies are quite the interesting little subject in the English language. They can be easily created with thought, for example, today it is hot outside, therefore it must be summer. This is a fallacy, because today may be an exception to the weather. It might be a hot day in winter. Or, we can examine this from the other angle, in that all days in summer are not necessarily hot, therefore this particular hot day may not be in summer.

c. I will hand in a written copy of part c, I need to purchase the books this afternoon.

Blog Assignment #1

According to Foss, rhetoric is commonly perceived as empty or meaningless. Rhetoric is also used as a term meaning ornamental and overly wordy speech, one that uses too much metaphor. However, Foss goes on to state that rhetorical criticism is more the human use of symbols as communication. Basically, from what I am understanding, the common usage of rhetoric is empty filler space, whereas rhetorical criticism is the use of symbols to communicate. Foss then goes on to break rhetoric down into three primary dimensions; humans as creators, symbols as the medium for rhetoric, and communication being the purpose. It's hard to describe an example from my experience, as I am not fully understanding rhetoric. As far as I am understanding, it is the use of symbols as communication, but in what sense? Certainly not as mundane as sign language, but Foss does not make it out to be simply using symbolism in speech to describe things indirectly.

Rhetoric according to Reference.com's dictionary section is defined (in writing or speech) as the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Merriam-Webster defines it as the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

I need this to be better explained in class -_-

Oyyy not a good start

It's 2:11AM, and I just made my blog. Wow, hell of a bad way to start English this semester. I even ran into my professor, in the English department building, where I was reminded to send him my blog URL by 10PM. A reminder earlier on in the day and I still forget. Fail.

Other than this epic fail, tonight was uneventful. Great plans turned went up a certain creek, and we ended up hanging out in a basement, wasting our lives as usual. Hopefully tomorrow won't suck as much...then again, it's wrong to be hopeful. Class 12:20-1:10PM, followed by 3:35-5:30, and 6:30-9:50. I don't mind core, and at least English is a class I've always enjoyed. I'm thinking the last class has to go.