Week 4

One of the continuing ideas that I have lingered on between class and the readings is the idea of Truth versus truth. Specifically, I am reminded of the theories of learning and knowledge I learned about in my Skills for Teaching Adults class last year. The main scheme I am reminded of is by Perry (1970). The lowest level of learning according to Perry is dualism, in which a student has a simplistic binary understanding of a subject. This level deals with the simple concepts of this or that, true or false, yes or no. As a student progresses through Perry’s scheme they learn to understand multiple perspectives with increasing levels of complexity. The stages are dualism, multiplism, relativism, and finally commitment. The commitment stage means that the student can forge reasoned positions and is comfortable with navigating multiple explanations and definitions. 

A similar scheme called SOLO (1982) concerns deep versus shallow learning. The levels of this scheme are called prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, and finally extended abstract. I visualize this learning process as being an extremely pixelated image that becomes clearer as more and more detailed and complex components are understood and incorporated into the student’s overall understanding. A great example of this is the study of biology and anatomy & physiology. At the beginning a student must understand all of the separate components in isolation and by the end the student needs to understand how things operate at a systemic and organismal level. 

Bringing these ideas to the realm of philosophy and rhetoric I think of the previous weeks readings involving the multiple levels the soul can reach (according to Plato). I feel that an individual who claims to know Truth may not have reached the highest level of learning possible (or they’re just an egotist with a self serving goal). 

Getting through Aristotle has been like wading through cement. I fear that I have only managed to skim through it. What I have read, however, seems to focus on a lot of ideals and parameters for addressing different audiences. 

I used Google to look up rhetorical analysis paper ideas and found a suggestion to compare a speech from Emma Watson and one from Priyanka Chopra. Obviously I feel inclined to go full Hermione on Hermione herself, but I may try to find another speech to analyze to make it unique.