Enlightenment Theory and Criticism

This week, Pope’s Essay on Criticism was my favorite of the provided readings. This section in particular stood out to me:

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense

I think that this is very important in a society where so much of the information we receive is transmitted verbally and via the internet.

                One prime example of information being verbally misconstrued in my life is through my friend Nick.  Nick likes to mix accurate information with what he thinks is true and sometimes even what he knows as false.  Before I got to know him and was able to identify when he was adding little bits of flair to his “facts,” I often took his words to be true.  I even told other people some of the information he had given me, believing it to be true.  This misleading of the senses accounts for thousands of inaccurate statistics we soak up and spew out to our fellow peers, further misleading them.

                The internet is just as bad as my friend Nick.  The internet has become extremely useful in many ways, but also allows for the distortion of many truths.  Sites like Wikipedia or others that allow anonymous posting allow people who aren’t experts to sound like experts.  Another teacher was just telling me how a student had cited a random website in their paper.  It turns out this website was created by a 6^th grade class for a project and most of the information was flawed, but the presenter had believed all of it.

                Due to this I complete understand the desire for bad writing over convincing but untrue writing.

Classical Antiquity Continued

On Longinus and Aristotle:

This week, I found the Longinus reading to be particularly interesting.  At first I didn’t completely agree with what he was saying.  To me, the sublime could be simple and pure, whereas he says that it should not only be initially beautiful, but must also be able to maintain its beauty upon deeper analysis.  Eventually, however, I realized that we actually have similar thoughts on sublimity.  A dew drop for example is simple, pure and beautiful.  I initially thought that seeing sublimity is something so simple meant that we weren’t in agreement, however as I began to think about the beauty of the water drop and why it was so beautiful and it’s other attributes that make is special, I saw I was wrong.  Even simple things can be rather complex and therefore sublime.  Water is pure, but it refracts light, shows through color, and even gives life.

                 Due to the fact that I see nature as so often sublime, I wish that Longinus could have included more about sublimity in other areas besides literature, but seeing how this is a part of critical theory in literature, I guess that wouldn’t have made all that much sense.

                Another thing I particularly liked about Longinus was his desire for elevated diction.  This was very similar to Aristotle’s definition of “exotic names.”  Big words are always fun, even if sometime daunting and I thought exotic names sounded like a more exotic way of describing these words.

Analysis #1 Classical Antiquity

     In this skit, we see a prime example of a poor argument consisting of pure contradiction and no evidence or persuasive elements.  When contrasted with Gorgias’s “Econium of Helen” the difference between argumentation and well executed rhetoric becomes immediately apparent.  The two main characters of this skit are engaged in an argument, one of them even admitting that it is not necessarily a “good argument” in which neither is very persuasive to the other.  The characters merely contradict each other over and over in an effort to prove their respective points which seem to alter as the argument progresses.

     Instead of simply arguing back and forth in a series of “yes you did” and “no I didn’t” circular arguments as the two characters in the skit do, Gorgias makes a claim that Helen should be free of blame and then proceeds in his argument by stating the reasons as to why she shouldn’t be blamed.  He states that she was either in love, “persuaded by speech”, “ravished by force,” or “constrained by divine constraint.” This follow-through in his argument allows him to be far more convincing and effective than the two members of the skit.  As Gorgias states, persuasion must be added to speech in order to produce an influential argument.

There are only small glimpses in which the two actors employ any sort of use of rhetoric.  One of these times actually is in reference to rhetoric.  The actor argues, “An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition,” but is quickly contradicted by a non-supported claim afterwards.  The only other instance that attempts at effective rhetoric is when one of the actors supplies an alternative argument for a claim made by the other actors.  One states that he has paid since they are still arguing and the other quickly refutes by offering the possibility that he could be arguing on his free time instead of as a result of payment.

Gorgias states many things about the power of speech, but the most notable might be:

The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies. For just as different drugs dispel different secretions form the body, and some bring an end to disease and others to life, so also in the case of speeches, some distress, others delight, some cause fear, others make the hearers bold, and some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion.

Indeed, the speech the characters participate does act as an effect on the condition of one of the actors.  He becomes flustered and most certainly “distressed” and at times “bold” due to his frustration with the inaccuracy of the speeches being presented to him.  The effect can also be quite confusing and disorienting for anyone viewing the clip if they are unaware of what is occurring in the scene.


Works Cited



Benthecartoon. "Monty Python Argument Clinic." Web. March 15 2011.

Gorgias “Econium of Helen" (1927). Print. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.

Reading for 2/1 (Gorgias and Plato)

I’m a little unclear on how many blog posts we are supposed to have, but I’m assuming if I cover each week’s reading I should be fine.  This being said, I’ll start on Gorgias’s Econium of Helen and Plato’s Republic Books II, III, and X.

                Gorgias is concerned with persuasion, not universal truth, which I think is interesting and really goes to show how there is never really one reality, as there can be multiple truths depending upon how one is persuaded and what facts are illuminated.  The book says that the way he thought could be stated as such:  “language as not simply representing reality but in effect producing reality by shaping the beliefs of an audience.”   Okay, now that’s a cool concept; language can create and mold reality.  It really shows how influential language is and reminds me of why I’m an English major, because language really is amazing and has such awesome capabilities.

In his Econium, Gorgias tries to prove that Helen’s “detractors” are lying and works to improve his overall ethos by attempting to show he purely is searching for truth. He says that either the gods willed her to act the ways she did, she was in love, or persuaded by speech.  All of these options leave her blameless.  I think it’s interesting how within his attempt to display the powers of rhetoric by changing people’s minds, he also additionally proves how rhetoric may have been powerful enough to change Helen’s mind and cause her to act the way she did. By implanting ideas, invisible matters may become apparent.

                I, personally, couldn’t relate to Plato’s thoughts as well as I could to Gorgias.  Plato favored strong censorship and thought that young people couldn’t distinguish allegory from truth, which I find absurd.  He manipulates logic in order to prove his point and guide those who he speaks with arrive at the same conclusions he has.  Because of his skillful manipulations of words, I admire him.  It is understandable that his need for absolute truth would follow people like Gorgias, who didn’t care much for truth and only wanted good arguments.   

                When you look at these two figures together, you can see the progression of ideas in Classical Antiquity.  There’s a series of actions and reactions, in which Gorgias and Plato come up with their opinions of what should be of value in society.

Hello, it's nice to meet you!

Alright, so I’m not exactly sure what to write for this blog (particularly for an introduction), so bear with me as I stumble through this. I’m sure it’ll get easier as I get more accustomed to the class. In any case, first I’ll tell you a bit about myself and then we can get into the fun theory stuff.

My name is Carmen Drake, and I’m currently in my third year here at CSUN. I like to keep busy, so I’m involved in several positions in my sorority and on the CSUN Dance Team. I have a love for reading that has existed for as long as I can remember, which has resulted in a slightly overactive imagination and a near-empty bank account. After reading, comes dance and then photography. I’ve recently become quite the collector of hobbies and look forward to try new things, which has recently led me to learn that I’m surprisingly good with a shotgun (skydiving is up next!)

Now, on to my introductory thoughts about Critical Theory... I’ve never taken a critical theory class before, so I know much about critical theories. Actually, to be more accurate, I know nothing about critical theory. Zip. Zero. Zilch. That being said, I’ll admit, this class is a little bit intimidating to me especially since when some my fellow students speak I feel like I have a huge question mark looming above my head. I’ve heard so many of the terms used for theory before, but I’ve never taken the time to learn them, which makes me feel a little behind already (which is ironic because I’m coming to this class to learn things, not because I already know them). The first readings also seemed a bit confusing, but as I went on, things got clearer and clearer once again with discussion. I’m excited for this class, but I know I’m going to have some confusion and misunderstandings along the way since this subject is so new to me.

In our first class we were asked what our “theory of theory” was. When the question was first asked, I was a somewhat confused. I know nothing about theory, so all I could think of was “how am I supposed to know what mine is if I don’t know what my options are?” However, as the class discussion proceeded I got a better idea of what was being asked and was consequently able to clarify my own thoughts, making it easier to come up with a better understanding and a rough answer.

I’ve decided that my theory of theory is that an author’s true intentions can never truly be known (even to the author himself) as much of the reasoning behind a work is unconscious. When we write, we reveal significant details about our beliefs and backgrounds that greatly impact the writing and readers’ responses. Authors often include themes and ideas that are important to their stories without even realizing that they are doing so and I think that sometimes when we write, we teach ourselves about ourselves, if that makes any sense.

As I said before, I’m new to all of this, so I apologize if I sound like an idiot sometimes throughout the course of the semester, but I’m looking forward to trying something new and learning some new things!