Three Spheres of an Argument

With this portion of response including the metaphor wall of separation, it is this figure of speech that historians have concluded to be the surrounding justification of what is currently utilized throughout the findings of courts and moral explanation of the separation of church and state as we currently know it today. However, even that assumption has been challenged on several levels from Chief Justice’s findings of various Supreme Court cases, including Justice Hugo Black’s restatement in the 1947 Everson decision, to the scholarly reflection of numerous university faculties attempting to prove point for rationale of a lesson delivery at the public university level (Hemmer, 2009; Araujo, 2013).

During the 17th and 18th century the “Age of Reason” the philosophers showed many new ways of showing natural laws within nation, government, and rights that helped mankind. As the philosophers went to discuss political, religious, economics, and social questions they helped shape the democratic world we live in today.

To him, the framework of argumentation involves the relationship between audience and the speaker and is to be influenced by the argumentation. Adherence is a “sense of allegiance and understanding”, and this type of discourse involves values. In The Realm of Rhetoric, Perelman begins to discuss about the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy, and how dialectic discourse plays a part in the relationship. This is in contrast to the Cartesian Method of scientific discovery. Also, in this section Perelman advocates that rhetoric is subordinated to philosophy, claiming “If dialectic is useful to the philosopher, by allowing himself to settle erroneous opinions, the perception of truth will come through intuitions; rhetoric will serve to communicate these truths and to gain their acceptance. (1379)” Through the use of dialectical reasoning as well as rhetoric, one can influence the minds of the audience and affect their judgement. So, philosophical argumentation calls for a particular field of a theory of argumentation which he has developed as the new rhetoric. “As soon as communication tries to influence one or more persons, to orient their thinking, to excite or calm their emotions, to guide their actions, it belongs to the realm of rhetoric

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

Politically, Socrates’ ‘sting ray’ method of questioning in today’s society would be most useful given that political institutions are one of the oldest on the land (Rhees 49). Most of the approaches in the political arena have been around for centuries without a keen mind questioning their validity. The ideas of democracy and

A discourse community is said to be resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny because all ideas that severely contrast the values and beliefs within the community are defined as being on the outside, as demonstrated in the texts. “The Discourse itself defines what counts as acceptable criticism” (Gee 162). All of the articles use similar rhetorical strategies by describing a problem in shared thinking; the common conception that the

In their essays, both authors Sidney Callahan and Deborah Tannen discuss strategies for a possible improvement in society’s ways of arguing. In “Fight Fierce but Fair: Practice at Home,” (1994), Callahan claims “if you learn to fight well and fairly at home, you can contribute to the civic struggle necessary to keep a pluralistic society moving.” With a set of guidelines and rules composed through personal experience, Callahan successfully uses this technique to give readers an immediate call to action and a solid, convincing essay. In “The Triumph of the Yell,” (1994), Tannen claims that “more and more these days, journalists, politicians, and academics treat public discourse as an argument – not in the sense of

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

The heuristic that is used for this research guide to identify a discourse communities is the six characteristics that John Swales identifies in “The

Life is like a massive highway that have infinite routes anyone can choose take to reach some type of designated goal. Those various routes lead to distinct exits, where one can discover a group or groups that share similarities dealing with viewpoints, beliefs, or understanding towards a particular goal. These groups can be identified as discourse communities. According to, “The Concept of Discourse Community,” in the textbook, Writing About Writing, John Swales stressed that in order to be classified as a discourse community the group has to have all six defining characteristics. Swales emphasized, “A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback, utilities and hence processes one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims, acquires specific lexis, and has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expertise” (Swales, 221-222). Keeping this key detail in mind, there is numerous type of discourse out there.

William Jennings Bryan once says, “Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for; it is a thing to be achieved.” Our future is depended on what we choose to be and how to get to it. We must stand up and get involve or communicate with the field before giving an ultimate decision. In this assignment, I will investigate the discourse community that I hope to join professionally and understand the broad view of the types of work along with its opportunities.

According to Swales a discourse community is created with six defining characteristics that are “made up of individuals who share a broadly agreed upon set of common public goals; further, it has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, uses it participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback, [that] has or uses one or more genres that help group achieve its shared goal, has acquired some specific lexis and has a reasonable ratio of novices and experts” (Swales, 795). To explain Swales’ concept, I have chosen to apply his six characteristics, necessary and sufficient for identifying groups as a discourse community, to analyze my united states history one class, taught by Mrs. Medley, along with some feedback I retrieved from both a fellow student and my professor.

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial,

Yet, it still serves the effect like John Stuart Mill’s concept of Freedom of Speech, preventing the truth loses its power and meaning (Mill, 1869). As such, the new idea generated from an argumentative discussion might be true, even it is not, perhaps it is partially true that helps to get closer to the real truth of the discussed issue. In addition, even the new idea generated from the dialogues of two individuals is not true at all, it still gives meaning to the truth and prevent the truth from becoming an unchallenged dogma. As a result, it is important for us remain practising the Socratic method to facilitate ourselves to understand more about the world, especially it helps to keep the truth