Throughout the semester of this Political Science 101 course, we’ve been exposed to many of the most prominent political minds. We’ve read pieces by Hobbes, Locke, Plato, Walzer, Kant, and so many more. Besides learning about political theory, I think one of the most important things I’ve been able to pick up on this semester is what makes a good argument and the need to think about arguments critically.
Almost every piece that we read this semester, more or less, has been meant to sway us in a certain political direction (by their authors). I found that many of the pieces made valid points and seemed to make sense to me as I read them, but there were few, in the end that actually swayed me. Maybe this is because many of them were written so long ago and we have seen them disproved by history, or maybe because I have a bias toward our American democracy. But I think another factor was how sound each argument was.
Like Crito for example. While reading it on my own, I found myself agreeing with Socrates and thinking his argument seemed valid enough. However, in lecture Professor LaVaque-Manty pointed out many flaws and holes in Socrates’ argument. One of the greatest thinkers and arguers of all time, yet his argument had holes and, in the end, was unconvincing. That shows how important it is to have a legitimate argument and to also express it accurately.
This is something I thought that Martin Luther King’s letter did a very good job of. Not only is his writing eloquent and persuasive, yet not too forceful, but he addresses every counter argument and opposing belief. His letter was convincing and moving. He showed that he knew what he was talking about without completely forcing his beliefs on the audience. I think this is what makes a great argument. He was able to prove his point through examples.
This is something that I think about often - whether or not I would believe certain things had they not been told to me by someone I really trusted. Oftentimes it is very difficult to separate the truth from situations of authority. For example, as you cited with Socrates, because Socrates is such a prominent historical figure of which we've all heard, we automatically assumed that he would have a sound argument without really delving into the complications of his claims. We're all guilty of this logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. As for Martin Luther King Jr., I think you're completely right. He did a very good job of making his argument. What I think makes his argument especially strong is the fact that he combined sound logic with the appeal to emotion. When he cited the experiences that African Americans were going through due to the horrible measures that resulted from segregation, his argument was only strengthened through the immense sympathy that we felt for him and those he represented.
ReplyDeleteThis post brought up a very important point. No matter how right one might think he or she is, his or her argument is rendered entirely useless if not structured effectively. Good job!
I also usually think about this kind of problem. However, I usually doubt about myself especially when I convinced by others. Not only when I read something but also when I see movie or listening music. I always care about authority. When I see a movie, sometimes I feel that even if the movie is not good, I think that actually the movie is good because the director of the movie is very famous. Also when I listen music, I don’t feel anything about certain music but I convince myself it is good music because it is sold a lot and won a lot of prizes. I think I need to learn how to think critical.
ReplyDelete