Cancer Rhetoric

After you have read at least 3 of the 5 chapters assigned from Susan Sontag's books—Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors—and have checked out the website for the Susan G. Komen "3 Day," comment below.

Comment below on Dorothy Robert's article, "The Social Immorality of Health in the Gene Age."

Eugenics

A poster from a Kansas State Fair, 1929.

Comment below on the excerpt from Havelock Ellis's 1913 book, The Task of Social Hygiene, and Brandon Keim's 2009 article on "Designer Babies."

Sex and Healthy Sex

Comment below on Jean Carlomusto's documentary, Sex in an Epidemic, and/or the National Abstinence Education Association website and the Father-Daughter Purity Ball website.

Write about whatever you want, or consider the following questions:

• Who are the intended audiences for the documentary and each website? How does the documentary or website use rhetoric, especially pathos, to target its intended audience?
• How is the history of AIDS and the social and medical responses to AIDS connected to the current state of "sex education"? What evidence do you have to support this connection?
• What arguments do these texts make about the relationship between sex, sexuality, and health? Are these arguments convincing?

Analysis of “On the Habits of Happiness”

The lecture “On the Habits of Happiness” by Matthieu Ricard was recorded in 2004 at a TED conference. These conferences are attended by scientists, CEO’s, designers and other intellectuals selected by an application process; who attend to hear some of the world’s most renown experts in various fields talk about their specialties. The lecture is appealing to the audience because like Ricard says, “no one wakes up in the morning thinking, ‘May I suffer the whole day?’” (Matthieu).

Mattheiu Ricard earned his PhD in molecular genetics before he decided to become a Buddhist monk and live in the Himalayas. He is a renown photographer, humanitarian and author and is considered by many the “happiest man in the world” (About 1).

Ricard starts his lecture by showing pictures of the Himalayas to establish trust with the audience and to also help them get to know him better. It is strange for a French scientist to be an expert of happiness and a monk. He starts the lecture off with a joke and a little insight into his life open up to the audience.

The humor of the speaker is crucial to establishing trust with his audience and makes him seem like an expert of happiness. The audience could be very skeptical that Ricard is an expert in something as subjective as happiness, and he makes light of this by poking fun at the French who “like the ups and downs of life ” and how it is unusual to be so concerned with unhappiness. (Matthieu).

Ricard very carefully structures his argument with a logical succession by starting with society views and common beliefs of happiness and moving into scientific evidence and practices of happiness. This is effective because it is a natural progression and the audience is not caught off guard with any abrupt evidence.

The speaker begins by saying that although we seek happiness, we do not have a very clear idea of what it is and that is why we often end up running from it. Ricard also talks about how even when we find happiness, we often become accustomed to it quickly and eventually lose the feeling of satisfaction. This works in establishing relatability with the audience since most people have felt this way at some point in time (Matthieu).

The author begins his position on happiness by explaining that he prefers the term well-being. His view, based on Buddhist belief, is that happiness is “not just a mere pleasurable sensation. It is a deep sense of serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies all emotional states.” He helps the audience understand this by using a metaphor of the ocean. He explains that happiness versus sadness is a wave that crashes to shore without depth, yet well-being is a state like the calm sea. There may be an occasional storm, but the depth of the ocean remains (Matthieu). I found this image to be very helpful in distinguishing what is different about Ricard’s argument. His view is clearly illustrated and easy to understand with this metaphor.

Ricard focuses on looking within oneself to find well-being. He acknowledges that traveling, money, and education are all desirable but “are just auxiliary, help conditions. The experience that translates everything is within the mind,” (Matthieu).

He then uses a very effective simile comparing consciousness to a mirror. He illustrates that just like a reflective surface, good and bad can be seen in consciousness but it does not remain forever. “We know were not always angry, always jealous, always generous,” (Mattheiu). This simile showed the fleeting nature of feelings and how complex well-being is.

This principle of fleeting emotions is the basis of the speaker’s argument and what inspires his remedy of mind training. He explains mind training as a practice of confronting your feeling such as anger or jealousy and says, “if you look at the thought of anger, it will vanish like the frost under the morning sun.” (Matthieu). According to Ricard, if this is practiced enough, eventually when these feelings arise they will just pass over.

Now at this point in the lecture, he brings in science. He mentions that it has been found that the brain remembers activities such as playing the violin and that it should be able to remember feelings like compassion and happiness. Ricard uses the example of monks who have done up to 40,000 hours of mind training and then had their brain activity analyzed.

The findings of these experiments were critical logic in his argument and deterred counterarguments. The studies showed that the avid meditators were a full standard deviation away from the bell curve on activity on the left (happy) side of the brain (Matthieu). I think this critical evidence is what was most convincing to the speaker’s argument. The individuals he is speaking to are hard-wired to only believe what is scientifically proven to them.

Ricard ties together all of his evidence and points by saying that we should not look at happiness as a “supplementary vitamin”, but instead as something that is the beginning of determining the quality of every moment of our lives. He concludes with the very powerful example that we spend large amounts of time on outer appearance and very little in comparison on keeping our mind healthy.

Overall, I found Matthieu Ricard’s lecture both entertaining and informative. I thought his argument was clearly stated and well explained. I especially enjoyed the humor he used and that he incorporated both Buddhist faith and science experiments seamlessly. The faith and science never felt forced together and also never seemed to contradict each other, something crucial to the effectiveness of his rhetoric.

Works Cited

"About Matthieu Ricard." Matthieu Ricard. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/index.php/about/>.

"Matthieu Ricard on the Habits of Happiness." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html>.

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Power to Persuade”

The article “The Power to Persuade” written by Kevin Dutton can be found in the March/April 2010 edition of Scientific American Mind magazine. This magazine appeals to those interested in matters of the brain, from psychology to physical structure. Kevin Dutton is a research fellow at the Faraday Institute at the University of Cambridge with a background in psychology, and is the author of various other articles and two novels related to the topic of psychology. “The Power to Persuade” was written so that Dutton could define the make up of “supersuasion” (24). Dutton attempts this through the SPICE acronym.

His language when starting off the article is very casual, and has a one-on-one quality to it as he describes his inability to persuade others most of the time (24). The use of this casual tone helps to bring the reader in, believing they have something in common with him and that maybe this article will make them masters of persuasion. Dutton gives a short background on his experience with persuasion, stating his desire to understand it better began with the idea that some are better at it than others (24). He then introduces “supersuasion”, which he describes as a “brand-new kind of influence that disables our cognitive security systems in seconds” and gives an example of a supersuader he witnessed in action on a flight (24). 

Simplicity. This is the first word of the acronym SPICE that Dutton describes. Under simplicity he states that persons are better influenced when the information coming at them is simpler, and then introduced a rhetorical strategy called the tricolon. The tricolon is a series of three words, and with these three words one is able to confirm and complete a point according to Dutton (26). He gave examples from history such as “veni, vidi, vici” from Julius Caesar and a portion of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (26). He also continued to use the tricolon in his own writing while continuing to explain the S of SPICE, noting every time he used it. This gives those reading it a “living” example of how to use a tricolon, which may have made it easier for some readers to understand. In order to further substantiate his idea that simpler is better, Dutton described a study performed in 2008 by two psychologists at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor where students were given two identical recipes written in different texts from one another. The text that looked more complex was rated as more difficult and least likely to be attempted by the students themselves (27). The use of this study was to establish the credibility of the article by backing up the information with scientific evidence. Dutton then uses humor, which he later describes as “the most effective tools in disarming” one’s “interlocutor and becoming a supersuader” (31).

Perceived Self-Interest. The second word of the acronym SPICE that Dutton describes. Before giving the definition, Dutton starts off with another study performed by psychologists that involves one of the core principles of social influence: reciprocity. The study involved loyalty cards from two different car wash centers, where a total of eight visits would get the owner a free car wash. One card had eight circles and the other had ten circles with two already filled in. The study found that 34% of those who had the ten circle card returned all eight times to get a free car wash, while only 19% of those with the eight circle card returned all eight times to get a free car wash. This, Dutton states, is a good example of perceived self-interested because it portrays the situation to be in the best interests of the customer and not the car wash center while in fact it is good business for the latter. Dutton used this study to, once again, further his credibility by backing up the information he provided with scientific evidence.

Incongruity. The third word of the acronym SPICE that Dutton describes. Here he states that humor is a powerful influencer when attempting to persuade others, because it provides incongruity allowing one’s mind to be open to suggestion (28). Dutton describes incongruity as a “double-take” for the brain, a distraction as well as a “reframing” (28). He then inserts another study performed by psychologists, in a restaurant situation. Diners were divided into different groups within a restaurant; one group received no candy with the bill, one group received one candy with the bill, one group received two candies with the bill, and another group received one candy then the waiter turned around and returned with a second candy. Those who received one candy tipped more than those who received none. Those who received two candies tipped more than those who received one, and those who received two candies when the waiter returned a second time tipped the most. Dutton states that diners believed they were receiving special treatment since the waiter’s return to bring a second candy was unexpected; it distracted their mind (29). The description of a study, with results, serves here again to provide scientific evidence to further Dutton’s credibility of the information given. He is approaching with a lot of logic; he does not questions these studies and does not follow up with any questions, just simply uses them to further his argument and imply they are absolutely correct.

Confidence. The fourth word of the acronym SPICE that Dutton describes, stating that influence without confidence “is about as useful as an inflatable dartboard” (29). This visual provided by Dutton appeals to one’s logic; an inflatable dartboard serves no purpose since it will deflate upon impact from a dart, just as intended influence will not influence at all if one lacks confidence, Dutton states. He then brought in another study, involving ratings of wine. In this study two wine bottles were labeled with different prices, one more expensive than the other, yet they contained the same wine. Ratings were higher for the wine that was more expensive, and even “generated increased activation in…the part of the brain that responds to pleasurable experiences” (30). He then also mentioned a second study that was similar to the one mentioned above, but instead of volunteers rating the wine, wine experts did so. Similar results were found. This is where Dutton might lose some readers, because the correlation between wine experts rating the expensive wine as a better wine to confidence does not line up right away. So it may take a couple of read-overs to understand before heading on to the last word in the acronym SPICE.

Empathy. The fifth and last word of the acronym SPICE that Dutton describes. Dutton does not explain empathy; so much as give examples of when empathy has been employed. He mentions a study where “content-filtered” recordings between doctors and their patients were played for a group of students, and the students then had to guess which doctors had been sued for malpractice. The result being that they guessed correctly for each doctor, stating that doctors who were sued sounded “way more self-important” and less empathetic (31). 

Kevin Dutton’s main goal was for the reader to be able to understand why some people can influence just about anyone, and it came down to the SPICE acronym. His employment of a few of the words throughout his article reinforced his point, and allowed the reader to see how it worked in action. Dutton’s use of at least one study or experiment for every definition of the SPICE acronym further established the credibility of his article with scientific evidence. When he described the studies, they were short and simple summaries of the experiment and the results found. Instead of overloading the reader with all sorts of information, Dutton condenses it so that the reader does not wander off. The information boxes throughout the article describing persuasion in animals, humans, and the “core principles” of persuasion also brought more significance to the topic of persuasion in everyday life, while pictures kept the readers interested in the article itself (31).

Works Cited

Dutton, Kevin. "The Power to Persuade: How Masters of "supersuasion" Can Change Your 

Mind." Scientific American Mind 11 Feb. 2010: 24-31. Web.

Wendoline Gamez
Professor Stephanie
RHE 309K
March 5, 2012

Rhetorical Analysis: On the Sacred Disease
In the article “On the Sacred Disease” by Hippocrates, an ancient Greek physician who was considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine, argues his opinion about  the disease called sacred, appearing to him that “it is not to be nowise more divine nor more sacred that other diseases” (Hippocrates). He supports this claim by first describing the types of people who were considered to be “excessively religious” ages ago. Then, he adds “suitable reasons” about the treatment and the use of different elements describing what is safe for them like “applying purifications and incantations, and enforcing abstinence form baths and many articles of food which are unwholesome to men in diseases”(Hippocrates). Toward the end of the essay, he applies his own logical knowledge of how the cause of illness is no longer divine but human. Hippocrates purpose is to acknowledge how and why the human body becomes ill, in order to explain his counterarguments and establishing the right way the body becomes ill with his superior knowledge abut the human body. He establishes a very complex text which was hard to understand. This article was written 400 B.C.E and translated by Francis Adams. Although this article was written ages ago, his opinion made history of medicine. This work is significant because it challenges those in the Health field to rethink about the history of medicine.

Hippocrates establishes counterarguments through out his article; he supports his arguments with scientific facts which made his text more persuasive. According to Hippocrates he “will show, there are others no less wonderful and prodigious, which nobody images to be sacred” (Hippocrates 1).  He supports this claim by describing the people who believed in referring a disease to a god, then he states, “Such persons, then, using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the disease is sacred”(Hippocrates). This is the way Hippocrates went on with his logical reasoning throughout the article, first addressing what the assumptions were then he would break it down into a comparison to the brain and then explain thoroughly what it really means.

Hereditary like other diseases, a “phlegmatic person be born of phlegmatic, and bilious of a bilious, and a phthisical of a phthisical, and one having spleen disease, of another having disease of the spleen, what is to hinder it from happening that where the father and mother were subject to this disease, certain of their offspring should be so affected also?”(Hippocrates). Basically explaining how the cause of a disease can be genetically transmitted or transmittable from parent to offspring. This is how his logic reasons made his article persuasive but he lacks emotional appeal toward his audience by using the word “ignorance” to attract his opponent. When he was explaining the men who are custom to use elements of nature they consider the cause to be divine, therefore they are lacking knowledge about the human body and how it works.

Then he establishes an irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning. The changes in the winds have a significant power towards the body. Hippocrates illustrated through this statement: “it possesses such powers over things so grate and strong, and the body is made to feel and undergo changes in the changes of the winds, it necessarily follows that the brain should be dissolved and overpowered with moisture, and that the veins should become more relaxed by the south winds, and that by the north the healthiest portion of the rain should become contracted, while the most morbid and humid is secreted, and overflows externally, and that catarrhs should thus take place in the changes of these winds”. He makes a connection towards the body by explaining how the “effects” of the winds can cause a change in the body, “cloudy, from cold, hot; from dry... ” Therefore, explaining a disease that forms and “prevails from those things which enter into and go out of the body, and it is not more difficult to understand or to cure than the other, neither is it more divine than other diseases”(Hippocrates). This is the text in the article of how Hippocrates establishes his way of thinking and reasoning, making his argument logic and specific for the reader to understand.

Throughout the text Hippocrates always went back on the significant power of the brain. As he states, “as long as the brain is at rest, the man enjoys his reason,” basically saying that when the brain is not in disposes to cause harm the body is at rest. Hippocrates states, “the brain exercises the grates power in the man” because “it is the brain which is the messenger to the understanding”. Making a connection with the heart he explains how “Some say that we think with the heart, an that this is the part which is grieved, and experience care” (Hippocrates). The brain has control over our emotions which our emotions have an effect on our body. He claims that “all the most acute, most powerful, and most deadly diseases, and those which are most difficult to be understood by the inexperience, fall upon the brain” (Hippocrates). He explains the challenges the brain goes through which impacts the body is what makes the cause of illness so divine.

Hippocrates establishes counterarguments in his article which he supported with scientific facts and logical reasoning. He has created a starting block for physicians who are studying the history of medicine, “physician should understand and distinguish the season of and injurious to another” (Hippocrates). He is pointing out how a physician should look into the history of the illness in order to understand and distinguish the cause of the disease. His teachings of clinical observations has probably influenced many readers of his works and had much to do with freeing ancient medicine from superstition. One of the most important factors about people’s lives is the information and the use of the growing knowledge of medicine had been influenced by Hippocrates believes and that is what he was most known for; one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine.

 

Works Cited

"Hippocrates." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Apr. 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates>.

"Irony." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony>.

"On the Sacred Disease by Hippocrates." The Internet Classics Archive: 441 Searchable      Works of Classical Literature. Trans. Francis Adams. b.c.e. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. <http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html>.

Neuro-Rhetoric

Comment below on Kevin Dutton's article, "The Power to Persuade," from this 2010 issue of Scientific American Mind.

Rhetorical Analysis of "On the Habits of Happiness"

Ashley Minei

Stephanie Rosen

RHE 309K

29 February 2012

Habits of Happiness

Gandhi once said, “Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” This famous quote encompasses Matthieu Ricard’s talk, Habits of Happiness. Ricard asserts that with mind training anyone can obtain happiness and well-being. He appeals to the common notion that happiness does not have one set definition and differentiates pleasure as a fleeting state while defining happiness as a conscious state of mind. Ricard believes the ability to find true happiness can only be obtained by the transforming of the mind.

Surprisingly, Matthieu Ricard, former molecular biologist, left the science community to pursue a life as a Buddhist monk in 1972. He is a well-renowned author and the French translator and the main photographer for the Dalai Lama. To many scholars, Ricard is also considered to be “the happiest man in the world” based on his MRI scans, having a standard deviation of -4.5 towards the positive emotion side of the brain, something no one else has achieved  (“Mattieu Ricard: Happiest Man”). His talk, Habits of Happiness, was given at the TED conference, which brings together the world’s most intriguing and sought-after thinkers of the present day to speak about various subjects. His audience consists of educated intellectuals who enjoy engaging conversation covering many different stimulating topics.

Ricard begins his speech by appealing to pathos. By presenting his own photography, he uses this visual imagery to capture his audience’s attention before there is even any verbal communication at all. Seeing the stillness and serenity of the Himalayan mountainside grasps each audience member, even those watching online from the comfort of his or her own bed. It makes them want more—to know more about the breathtaking place that Ricard calls home.

To begin his argument, he discusses the fact that many French philosophers consider happiness as something that is not interesting. Being a French man, he wants to disconnect himself from the French philosopher’s world. In a sarcastic manner, leaving the French to suffer alone, Ricard purports that “…consciously or not, directly or indirectly, in the short or the long term, whatever we do, whatever we hope, whatever we dream -- somehow, is related to a deep, profound desire for well-being or happiness.” One cannot help but agree with Ricard that the French philosophers must be wrong; happiness must be something everyone strives for. It is easy to trust Ricard because he treats his audience as his equals. Despite his confident demeanor, his tone is alluring; as he speaks, one can automatically detect the depth of intelligence he possesses without needing additional scholarly evidence.

Ricard transitions into tackling the complicated task of defining what happiness truly means. He quotes the famous French philosopher, Henri Bergson, stating, "All the great thinkers of humanity have left happiness in the vague so that…each of them could define their own terms.” As one’s view of happiness is at a heightened state of vulnerability, Ricard then goes on to explain the problem: that most individuals often see happiness as an external source which only eventually leads to destruction. He asserts: “Although we seek happiness, it seems we turn our back to it” (Ricard). His simple statement allows one to contemplate over the idea that, as individuals, we tend to run away from true happiness and right into the arms of suffering merely because of the confusion on what happiness is and where is comes from.

Adding clarity to the definition of happiness, Ricard infuses the Buddhist understanding of well-being which separates happiness from pleasure. Richard believes that, “Pleasure is contingent upon time, upon its object, upon the place. It is something that -- changes of nature.”  He compares eating a chocolate cake to pleasure; while one piece is delicious, having more than two leads to feelings of disgust of oneself, thus showing how too much pleasure can lead to suffering and it cannot possibly be considered happiness (Ricard). Through the use of simple analogies he forces the reader to agree with him. Most individuals have experienced having too much of a good thing which led to adverse effects and he compels the audience to agree with him. Ricard also makes the point that not only is too much pleasure unpleasant, pleasure is based solely on the individual, whereas, someone’s suffering could be another person’s delight.

Ricard then asks the primary question, “What is happiness?” He starts by changing the word happiness to the more holistic term of “well-being.” Ricard’s Buddhist view is that “well-being is not just a mere pleasurable sensation. It is a deep sense of serenity and fulfillment, a state that actually pervades and underlies all emotional states, and all the joys and sorrows that can come one’s way” (Ricard). Many times throughout his talk, Ricard uses hypophora, a figure of speech in which one poses a question and then immediately answers that question--often in great length (Nordquist). Again, Ricard asks himself and his audience how well-being can occur while sadness is present, and he brings in another analogy, showing that the two concepts are on different levels. Taking the complexity of the Buddhist intellect and putting it in simpler terms, he compares well-being to the ocean: “…there might be beautiful, calm ocean, like a mirror. There might be storms, but the depth of the ocean is still there, unchanged…It can only be a state of being, not just a fleeting emotion, sensation.” Negative emotions such as anger and sadness are only temporary and change often; happiness on the other hand is always present from within.

Having made the distinction between pleasure and well-being, Ricard shifts to the core of his argument: if happiness is a state of mind that controls one’s well-being, then training the mind to find this deeper awareness of happiness is possible. He reiterates the danger of defining happiness as an external source by stating,  "To have everything to be happy… That very sentence already reveals the doom of destruction of happiness. To have everything. If we miss something, it collapses” (Ricard). He states that our society needs to transform the mind through mind training, building on the pretense that all emotions are momentary. “Mind training is based on the idea that two opposite mental factors cannot happen at the same time. You could go from love to hate. But you cannot, at the same time, toward the same object, the same person, want to harm and want to do good” (Ricard).  Building on this he goes one step further, showing that the main point of mind training is “to try to find a general antidote to all emotions,” meaning one needs to once again look inward to find out what causes their negative emotions instead of looking at the external source that caused it.

At this point in the speech, Ricard could have easily lost his followers; not only does training the mind seem like a daunting task, but also he add it is it is a very time-consuming process. He once again successfully keeps his audience’s attention with the credibility of his scientific background. Ricard explains, “The brain was thought to be more or less fixed…Now, recently, it has been found that it can change a lot.” Showing evidence of this, he brings up a picture of simple bell curve, showing how far mediators are to the left of the curve, the happier side. He does not go on to explain this in much detail, but before the audience has time to question what they have just seen, he ends his speech by showing beautiful photographs of people who seem to have achieved pure happiness, giving the audience a sense of true joy.

Matthieu Ricard tackles the complicated task of defining happiness as a deep feeling from within that is one separate from pleasure. He establishes that looking internally to address negative emotions will train the mind to let go of the damaging emotions that holds one back from happiness. His argument is both intriguing, easy to follow, and well perceived; however, it is doubtful that many people will take the time to do what he proposes. However, if our society spent a fraction of the time that Matthieu Richard spends looking towards our mental capacity for creating true happiness, the world would most likely be a much more enjoyable place.

  

Works Cited

Ricard, Matthieu. “Matthieu Ricard on the habits of happiness.” Feb 2004. TED

Talk. ted.com. Web.

"Matthieu Ricard the Happiest Man in the World by Training His Mind with Authentic Tibeatan

Bouddhist Teachings." Training The Mind. N.p. n.d. Web. 25 Feb.

Nordquist, Richard. "Hypophora." About.com. The New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 25

Feb.