Something Different

…and now for something completely different. I hope everyone enjoys history. It may be due to all of the philosophy courses I’ve taken over the years, but I have such a romanticized idea of Plato-era Athens. Probably similar to the way many have of Paris. It is a bit strange, but I am intrigued by the philosophical views that have come from there. So for me, a history of rhetoric that begins here is not what I would consider an enormous task… but I have a cold, and I am very cranky. I’ve sat down three times to begin this over the past two days and nothing comes. I’ve considered going Peter Elbow all over this page, but feel it will not serve its purpose here. I’m going to work with a few premeditated ideas and we’ll see if we get cooking.

It appears that Williams believes that if we are ever to become truly great teachers of writing, we must have a concise knowledge of where it all came from. While I normally ague that one must have historical context for everything, I am not certain it creates a great teacher. Perhaps, it creates a greater student. For example, if someone is writing a review of The Clash’s 1979 album, “London Calling,” it is almost impossible to call the album essential if someone has no knowledge of this era. In fact, a critic’s knowledge should extend far beyond the sonic achievement contain within the 30-60 minutes of a typical album. But one correlation I’ve tied from the text and credibility, is that what is considered good is always debatable. Like Protagoras would say, “a man was the sole judge of his own sensations and beliefs, which were true for him so long as they appeared to be so.” Sure, collectively rock critics argue that “London Calling” is one of the most important albums of all time, but philosophically, the Sophists would say something along the lines of “importance does not exist, just choose a side, stick with it, iron out the flaws, and sell! sell! sell! your product. Anything can we right, if you take the time to convince others.”

This is why we have lawyers. We are unable to collectively agree to what is right and wrong (let alone act upon them) or good and bad. We can speculate on the correctness of everything. For instance, some would consider the 1950s to be the good ‘ole days: simpler times, kinder people, less commotion, greater respect for the family, greater reliance on religion, etc. etc. etc. But those who were the victim of race/discrimination crimes, or poverty stricken, or divorced, or had non-Christian beliefs, or had a child out of wedlock may see this era completely different. That is why I would consider the modern era to be the finest for one great reason: we are able to witness many ideas that have come and gone. Some have failed, some were unsuitable for the time, some have stood the test of time, some fall in and out of favor, etc.

The fortunate thing for students is their teacher will be introducing them to a plethora of ideas. They will hear history and respond to it with their modern ideologies. They may even be using techniques to review a piece of classical literature or philosophy with the technique prescribed by the philosophers in question. That is o.k. I think many teachers have open-minded philosophies. We cannot decide what is ethically right in the world half of the time, so how are there any credentials for judging a students work?