From Ben Franklin’s The Autobiography (p. 80 – 83)
Write a well-developed paragraph in response to the following questions.
1. Explain what was involved in Franklin’s plan for self-perfection? What conclusion did Franklin come to regarding the effectiveness of this plan?
Franklin planned self-perfection by picking certain virtues that to him at the time seemed most necessary, or desirable. There were thirteen, which he intended to master and have no fault in. He planned to work on one at a time starting with the first, Temperance, and once having mastered that, moving on to the next. To keep track of his progress he made a little book where he made a page for each of the virtues. “I ruled each page with red ink, so as to have seven columns, one for each day of the week, marking each column with a letter for the day.” Every fault he found for a virtue each day, he would mark down in the book. He hoped to give a week’s worth attention to each virtue starting with temperance. The first week he hoped to “avoid even the least offense against Temperance,” and to keep moving on through the virtues each week and mastering each. But he was surprised that he found himself with more faults than he thought causing him to make a new book and keep going. He found himself relapsing and almost got to the point of giving up because it became impossible. He never made it past Order because he never felt he fully reached balance or a clear mind in Temperance. Even though his self-perfection failed he says, “Though I never arrived at the perfect I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell short of it, yet I was, by the endeavor, a better and happier man than I otherwise should have been if I had not attempted it.”
2. Do you feel that a plan such as Franklin’s would improve you as a person? Why or why not? What would be your top five virtues?
I feel it would improve someone as a person. Even though the goal is unattainable you may have fewer faults than you would if you did not go through Franklin’s plan.
1. Silence
2. Order
3. Sincerity
4. Industry
5. Moderation
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Journal #5
Journal #5 – from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (p.95-6)
1. Identify the specific argument that Paine is making in each paragraph. For each of the arguments, identify whether Paine is making an emotional, ethical, or logical appeal and suggest an effective counterargument.
#1- Thomas Pain is saying we need to standup against Britain and the tyranny. He says tyranny is not easily conquered but the harder it is the greater it is when you achieve it. This is an emotional appeal because it explains how sweet it will be when it is conquered, instead of focusing on the logic of the situation. He talks about how anything worth achieving in life does not come easy and if it comes to easy it’s not worth much.
Counter argument- Since Britain is a sovereign nation the King can tax you and do whatever he wants. A flaw would be that the Americans have very few advantages so the chances that they will win are very unlikely. Non-sequiter would be a fallacy because he compares slavery to taxation and that is a jump in logic to go from Britain to slave.
#2- The argument that Thomas Paine is making is his secret opinion that God will not let military powers destroy people that have tried to avoid the calamities of war. This is an ethical or moral argument. He says they are on the right side or morally right side so God will protect them.
Counter Argument- If the King of Britain believed that God gave him his power and was chosen by God why would he protect their enemy. Britain also believes heavily in God not just America. Logical counter argument may be that no one knows what side God chooses. He probably doesn’t want war and may not take sides at all. It is dogmatic because the Americans and Britain have faith in God instead of it being based on logic. A logic fallacy could be ad hominem because he attacks the king and compares him to a murderer. He is attacking the king as a person.
#3- The argument says that America may not be happy and at its best unless separated from Britain. He is saying that America will never be happy unless separated from foreign dominion, so do it right away and do not wait. He says to do it now for the children because war it going to come no matter what, and if they wait it will hurt the children. He is assuming a lot of things about the people of America and the future. He uses emotional appeal because he brings in the children. The logical appeal is that it will happen sooner or later, and ethical because it is right to sacrifice yourself for your children.
Counter argument: If you go to war for your child you may die and leave your child without a parent. Terrible things happen in war and it would not be better for a child if they lost their parent. What he is saying is a false dichotomy. He has no middle ground; he is saying that they either have peace or you have war, you either fight or you are a slave. It is two extremes with no middle ground. He ignores all the bad possible consequences and only looks at the good which would only happen if America won.
#4 It is saying that we need to stay up against Britain, saying that tyranny is hard to conquer, but if they are successful, it will be the best victory. “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” The argument is an emotional appeal. It is also a sentimental appeal because logically it is not going to be easy, and might get killed in trying to do so, but the thought of winning is a great feeling. Do not focus on the fact we are out number, focus that we are going to win and how great it is going to feel. Focus on emotions and not think with their minds. Well, you are not free country; you are subject of the king so the king can tax you back (ethical). Logically, the Americans have very few advantages and might not win. Paine was assuming triumph is going to occur. A fallacy was that it is sequiter. He compares taxation to slavery which is not related. He also uses argument by analogy which compares one thing to another.
2. Can you identify any of the logical fallacies that we discussed in Paine’s arguments? If so, which ones? Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of Paine’s arguments?
Yes there are many logical fallacies stated in the paragraphs above. For example non sequiter, argument by analogy, and ad hominem are fallacies he uses to try and help his arguments. There are strengths and weaknesses in his arguments. The argument about the best for the kids has many holes. If you go to war for your kids you may die, leaving your kids worse than when you left for war. This argument is purely emotional which is a flaw in the argument because emotion should not be put into war or to make great decisions. A strength would be going to war defensively because you did not start it or are the bad guy. You must go to war with no choice making it easier to get people to support it.
3. Formulate a question that you would like discussed based on the reading.
Based on the excerpt, what point/quote/and or argument did Thomas Paine write that you believe would have been the most influential to the readers of this The Crisis, Number 1? Why?
I believe the last argument is the best because it shows you are fighting for a cause. You are fighting defensively, not offensively so you feel that you are fighting justly unlike the other side that came at you. You cannot help but fight when others attack you so it would be easier to do and get people in the war.
1. Identify the specific argument that Paine is making in each paragraph. For each of the arguments, identify whether Paine is making an emotional, ethical, or logical appeal and suggest an effective counterargument.
#1- Thomas Pain is saying we need to standup against Britain and the tyranny. He says tyranny is not easily conquered but the harder it is the greater it is when you achieve it. This is an emotional appeal because it explains how sweet it will be when it is conquered, instead of focusing on the logic of the situation. He talks about how anything worth achieving in life does not come easy and if it comes to easy it’s not worth much.
Counter argument- Since Britain is a sovereign nation the King can tax you and do whatever he wants. A flaw would be that the Americans have very few advantages so the chances that they will win are very unlikely. Non-sequiter would be a fallacy because he compares slavery to taxation and that is a jump in logic to go from Britain to slave.
#2- The argument that Thomas Paine is making is his secret opinion that God will not let military powers destroy people that have tried to avoid the calamities of war. This is an ethical or moral argument. He says they are on the right side or morally right side so God will protect them.
Counter Argument- If the King of Britain believed that God gave him his power and was chosen by God why would he protect their enemy. Britain also believes heavily in God not just America. Logical counter argument may be that no one knows what side God chooses. He probably doesn’t want war and may not take sides at all. It is dogmatic because the Americans and Britain have faith in God instead of it being based on logic. A logic fallacy could be ad hominem because he attacks the king and compares him to a murderer. He is attacking the king as a person.
#3- The argument says that America may not be happy and at its best unless separated from Britain. He is saying that America will never be happy unless separated from foreign dominion, so do it right away and do not wait. He says to do it now for the children because war it going to come no matter what, and if they wait it will hurt the children. He is assuming a lot of things about the people of America and the future. He uses emotional appeal because he brings in the children. The logical appeal is that it will happen sooner or later, and ethical because it is right to sacrifice yourself for your children.
Counter argument: If you go to war for your child you may die and leave your child without a parent. Terrible things happen in war and it would not be better for a child if they lost their parent. What he is saying is a false dichotomy. He has no middle ground; he is saying that they either have peace or you have war, you either fight or you are a slave. It is two extremes with no middle ground. He ignores all the bad possible consequences and only looks at the good which would only happen if America won.
#4 It is saying that we need to stay up against Britain, saying that tyranny is hard to conquer, but if they are successful, it will be the best victory. “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” The argument is an emotional appeal. It is also a sentimental appeal because logically it is not going to be easy, and might get killed in trying to do so, but the thought of winning is a great feeling. Do not focus on the fact we are out number, focus that we are going to win and how great it is going to feel. Focus on emotions and not think with their minds. Well, you are not free country; you are subject of the king so the king can tax you back (ethical). Logically, the Americans have very few advantages and might not win. Paine was assuming triumph is going to occur. A fallacy was that it is sequiter. He compares taxation to slavery which is not related. He also uses argument by analogy which compares one thing to another.
2. Can you identify any of the logical fallacies that we discussed in Paine’s arguments? If so, which ones? Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of Paine’s arguments?
Yes there are many logical fallacies stated in the paragraphs above. For example non sequiter, argument by analogy, and ad hominem are fallacies he uses to try and help his arguments. There are strengths and weaknesses in his arguments. The argument about the best for the kids has many holes. If you go to war for your kids you may die, leaving your kids worse than when you left for war. This argument is purely emotional which is a flaw in the argument because emotion should not be put into war or to make great decisions. A strength would be going to war defensively because you did not start it or are the bad guy. You must go to war with no choice making it easier to get people to support it.
3. Formulate a question that you would like discussed based on the reading.
Based on the excerpt, what point/quote/and or argument did Thomas Paine write that you believe would have been the most influential to the readers of this The Crisis, Number 1? Why?
I believe the last argument is the best because it shows you are fighting for a cause. You are fighting defensively, not offensively so you feel that you are fighting justly unlike the other side that came at you. You cannot help but fight when others attack you so it would be easier to do and get people in the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)