The Art of Rhetoric

When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong

As human beings we are naturally wired to seek happiness wherever we can find it. When we don’t, we may enter a stage of anger, anxiety, or distress. That’s why it is our personal goal to look for happiness and preserve it once we acquire it. Many have explored ways to find what triggers this feeling of “happiness” and what we can do to keep it; nonetheless, the evidence found is hardly sufficient to make a public statement on how to find happiness. For this reason, most of the time we speculate what might provoke this feeling of contentment. “Happiness is a glass half empty,” an essay written by Oliver Burkeman, highlights the importance of happiness and discloses how we can find delight through unorthodox methods. The prime objective of this piece of writing is to inform the audience about the effect of happiness on their lives and how their usual attempts of becoming happier can sabotage achieving this feeling. Furthermore, he wants to promote the benefits of pessimism and describe how it can help us in the long run. The author utilizes pronouns, logos, and pathos in order to prove his point and draw the audience into his essay, in an attempt of making them reconsider the way they live their lives and adopt this new pessimistic way that would greatly boost their level of happiness.

The topics that I am most interested is God and health. I am extremely passionate about my faith as well as maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It may seem like these two topics are on the opposite side of the planet, but they have more similarities than you may think. My favorite reading thus far in A Time Traveler's Guide to Rhetoric is “Allegory of the Cave” by Plato. This story reminds me of today’s society, as humans begin to see the significance of light we also discover the truth. Of course, this all relates to my Christian faith, in which we seek the truth of Jesus Christ, we become the light in a dull and dark world. The longest paper I ever had to write was last year in my AP English course in which I was required to do a semester long

Propitiously book one heralds the discourse, surrounding primarily what is involved in the pursuit of happiness, innocuously conferring a multifarious picture. Albeit, before we propound on this it is worth mentioning that the cause of this topic is the caricature of old age and its typical correlation with misery depravity. First, Cephalus gives us the view that it is one's good character that promulgates happiness and not age related; but this is challenged in light of Socrates who appends that it is due to the rise of his opulence that he has this view. To conclude it would seem at appropriate level that ones virtue is in part a factor but not an ultimate factor; for it remains scanty that one could truly say that they are happy if they

The political spectrum in general, have grasped manipulative rhetoric tactics in gaining the public’s support on both sides of the prominent gun possession issue. As everyone knows, the media exploits a multitude of strategies and tactics to influence the community in a specific direction, depending on what opinions they are trying to press on the people.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

The 2016 presidential campaign, was wrought with several controversial issues, none more so than the refugee crisis. Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump’s Anti-Muslim rhetoric, appeared to go against the American ideals of protecting religious freedoms. This trend continued into his presidency, he enacted Executive Order 13769 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”, banning immigrants and refugees from seven predominately Muslim countries. While, the President claims these measures were taken to prevent any future terrorist attacks on the United States, many question if the Order has more to do with instilling a ban on Islam. Yet, with the possibility of terrorists entering the United States, how can we

Rhetoric can push users farther than the normal argument, and past the habits of the natural human mind. When one comes to understand the theory of words, argument and how opposition thinks, then can the situation fully be revolved for their favor and their future. Rhetoric is a valuable skill that should be taught in schools in order to assist in high school environments, and help prepare for a future in the workplace.

In this week’s reading of the “Rhetorical Approaches to College Writing”, the foundations for rhetoric were introduced. The book describes rhetoric as a word with many definitions that all have a commonality. From the reading rhetoric seems to have a way of calling people to action in some distort manner similar to enticement. From the reading three definitions of rhetoric were given by different sources. The first source being from a ancient Greek philosopher who defined rhetoric as, “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion”(RACW pg.3). I learned that for Aristotle the Greek philosopher rhetoric was a means of political engagement in civic life (RACW pg.4). The second source was from another

Rhetoric is a course in which students are taught the values of persuasion. And yet, behind this course is the utmost power to corrupt the world, changing it into a world of our own policies. This power, even though seldom discussed, has lead to many intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is how people are able to shape the world they live in simply by choosing the right words. Therefore those who would want the world to be a better place must protect this power. If in the wrong hands this power could cause serious damage. Several authors have striven to protect rhetoric and its power. Few agree on the matter of defining rhetoric, but they know that they must protect rhetoric from dark souls. A single definition of rhetoric must maintain a simplistic nature while incorporating every aspect of rhetoric. However, I argue that rhetoric is a means of persuading audiences of a situation and a particular reality through language and personal appeal. In order to prove this definition I will discuss how rhetoric creates a situation, the shaping of a different reality, the audience, the use of language, and the personal appeal. Finally, I will demonstrate the absolute need for rhetoric.

In current society, people question the true essence of a happy life: is it money, power love, sex, or religion? In retrospect, however, this is a contemplation that also wondered the minds of people from ancient times. Ever since the emergence of early civilizations, human beings have attempted to identify the elements that can allow them to live happier lives. For the early thinkers of these civilizations, this quest for a more meaningful and satisfying life could be acquired only through the application of philosophical thought. According to them, philosophical thinking, which strictly focuses on the use of reason and logic (Pojman and Vaughn 2), offered the only tools that would allow them find the true sources of happiness. A prime example of a civilization that used critical thinking and reason to identify these seemingly complex elements were the ancient Greeks. Essentially, Greek philosophy attempted to find rational answers to basic questions about man and the universe (Owens). These questions included the quest for happiness. The intellectual movement of ancient Greece nurtured many different kinds of philosophies, and in particular, there were two different kinds of philosophies that attempted to guide people towards the quest of a fulfilled and happy life: the philosophies of Epicureanism and Hedonism.

The pursuit of happiness is a timeless and ageless endeavor. Since the beginning of time people have searched far and wide for the source of happiness. Even the greatest minds attempt to discover the basis of all human contentment. The father of philosophy, Socrates, was one of those few that might have unearthed the key to human happiness. His understanding shaped the way that the western world sees pleasure, joy, and happiness. His views on how to obtain them are still alive today.

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Happiness is the fundamental objective of life. This bold statement is unanimously agreed upon among generations of people on every corner of our planet. However, the real question that has been contested for centuries is the true meaning of happiness? The true meaning of happiness is one of the most highly debated philosophy topics in history. Most famous are the writings of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill who both paint very opposing pictures of happiness. Mill believes happiness is obtained through pleasure and the absence of pain. On the other hand, Aristotle insist happiness is obtained through living a fulfilling, virtuous life. This passage will examine Aristotle 's and Mill 's views on happiness as well as give an opinion one which philosophical theory is most convincing.