A New Beginning

Throughout every year of a person’s career in school, they encounter a new atmosphere for the next one hundred eighty days. These days are spent in a variety of ways from person to person, however each undergoes the creation of a new environment, one that builds a family-like environment in some schools. In smaller, k-12 schools, each student is lumped with the same grade largely for their whole stay at the school. Day in and day out that the students arrive and spend the next eight hours of their life associating with one another. Spending this much time with someone can bring out a variety of both positive and negative views. 

By spending all this time with each student, one is exposed to a variety of culture and diversity from person to person. As stated by Postman in his novel, The End of Education, Postman supports a negative view of all of this time spent, saying how the study, “…of aspects of culture… in truth, are likely to make students uncomfortable”(Postman 158). Postman writes about how the constant subjection of diversity actually dissuades people from appreciating other cultures and promotes a superiority complex to their own culture. However, even in the past twenty years since the publication of Postman’s book, toleration/acceptance of diversity has changed. As seen with events such as the legalization of same-sex marriage among others, people accept diversity and difference more. In actuality, many students such as I have felt a strong sense of home and family  even when I am surrounded by students everyday who are quite different from me. Even though a student may not know everyone at his/her school, the school environment is a great place for bonds and friendship to occur above the negativity. School gives students almost an hour to meet and talk with others with lunch, and many schools such as Lake Mary Prep put great value into letting new people and cultures feel welcome. A variety of programs usually exist in different schools, such as student ambassadors, who can help new students or different students meet and learn about each other. Not only does this expose children to diversity, but it also promotes a friendly aspect to it. I myself have made many friends through student ambassadors with people who don't look, talk, or think anything like me. 

Ultimately, Postman continues to push an idea of a flawed educational system due to a problem with diversity, however the truth can't be any further off. Some schools do take little approach to the diversity in the students, however these schools only need adjustments to overcome this hurdle. Schools that take very little approach could quite possibly fix any issues of intolerance with ideas which push communication between different people, not just learning about different people. It’s one thing to hate a culture based off a story in a book, but it’s another to hate the same culture after talking with someone in the culture for a hour or so. Possibly, if more schools took this approach to make their public a more friendly atmosphere, one of the “ends” of education Postman proclaims about will merely be a beginning. 

Works cited

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

Arguing With Aristotle 

Within Gaardner’s novel, Aristotle is seen as one of the big three philosophers who arguably set in motion modern western thought. Aristotle was hugely ahead of his time in ancient Greece, depicting philosophical thought such his “final cause” which would be the basis for future ideas that we still ponder to this day. In Sophie’s World, Aristotle is mentioned for his empiricist outlook as well as for the creation of ideas such as formal logic, which couldn't be closer to the truth about his accomplishments.

Another work that gives insight into Aristotle would be Everything’s an Argument, by Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters.  The work goes to describe that, “…language is itself, inherently persuasive and hence that every text is also an argument that is designed to influence readers”(Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters 4). As the authors go further into their claim (that everything is an argument), they discuss different ways in which people argue. Aristotle made claims on a number of various topics throughout his philosophical career, one of which being spoken word/debate. In the Classical era, public speech events were huge, ushering waves of people to watch two well-cultured individuals debate a particular topic. Ancient Rome and Greece had argumentative thinkers whom devoted their careers to debate, and these places can arguably be named one of the birthplaces of modern public speech. 

In Gaardner’s work, Aristotle is credited for his study of changes and his focus on evidence as an empiricist. This can also be attributed to Aristotle’s work on public speech, where he, “…identified three key ways that writers can appeal to their audiences in arguments…pathos, ethos, and logos”(Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters 34). In Everything’s an Argument, Aristotle took notice of such changes to a person’s opinion on an argument based on how the argument appealed to them. As described in Gaardner’s work, Aristotle then uses evidence based upon this idea to devise emotional, ethical, and logical appeals. Emotional, or Pathos, consisted of argumentation which included generation of emotions for the reader, making the piece’s impact stronger, such as seeing a child in need on a commercial for a charity. Ethical, or Ethos arguments include the idea of self presentation. Aristotle believed that people would take an argument more seriously if it seemed credible, or sided with their beliefs. Lastly, Logical, or Logos appeals involve the use of facts or statistics to persuade people to your side.

Ultimately, both novels cross over the philosophical ideas which people hold up to Aristotle, containing his empiricist thought process as well as logical ideas.

Works Cited

Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters. Andrea, John, Keith.  Everything’s an Argument. Bedford: St. Martin’s, 2006. Print.

Truthfully, Cromsky’s opinion on the events of the September 11th attacks are very controversial as he says, however also misguided. In his essay, Cromsky challenges the regular American viewpoint of 9/11 by stating that the following war on terror was exactly what bin Laden wanted, and that previous events (such as the Chile conflict mentioned in the essay) even conducted by the United States put down the travesty. Cromsky later goes on to mention that the following death of bin Laden was ultimately illegal and wrongful, and that if another country had done the same, the United States would be in outcry. 

On the other hand of the points made by Cromsky, there is much to look at. The “tragedy” that was conducted by the United States in Chile was underplayed by 9/11 due to a multitude of reasons. Firstly, the events took place much before 9/11, and by the time the september 11th attacks hit, the world was more connected, with new luxuries such as the internet forming these connections. Being more connected allows more people to be exposed to a topic or event, in this case 9/11, which caused the attacks to be more widely known than the Chilean coup. Likewise, the 9/11 attacks hit home more than the events in Chile because they literally hit home. The september 11th attacks targeted huge buildings in a bustling American city of New York, which would obviously resonate more with Americans rather than the Chilean events. On top of this, Cromsky identifies that there could have been an alternative to the eventual war on terror which Cromsky believes “bled” the economy. Although the war was expensive, it was not the single greatest factor to cause recession, and other problems existed of even greater significance such as the failure of the stock market to start the United States’ recession period. Cromsky continues to put to shame Bush’s response to the attacks, but no matter how draining or depleting Cromsky tries to put them up to, one undeniable result was created from his response, that being American pride and nationalistic unity. Bush’s war on terror, as well as his address to congress after the attacks brought together everyone that encompassed America with open arms to stand up for themselves and the country. And although many of Bush’s decisions in office have been far from perfect, his ability to rally the American people was truly impactful, and noted in his skyrocketing approval ratings at the time. Many people looked for someone to reside their fears in and gain security in return, and Bush was arguably successful in this regard. Along with these claims, Cromsky adds that the later assassination of bin Laden, the man behind the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, was unlawful. Cromsky argues in his essay that with a large amount of military commandos, the Navy SEALs which brought the mass murderer down should have taken him in alive to be put on trial. However, it is known that the SEALs were given orders to kill, and that the mission was ultimately an assassination mission not a capture, disproving the idea that the commandos on the mission were in the wrong. In regard to the orders, they remained completely lawful. Cromsky makes a vague attempt at trying to relate the killing of bin Laden to the assassination of a president or political leader, however this is not the case. In fact, the assassination of political leaders outside of being in war is completely illegal, which Cromsky is right about. Where Cromsky goes wrong is clumping bin Laden in as a “political leader,” which he was not. The reason Osama bin Laden’s death was completely legal was due to him being a military commander, and in military combat, an enemy can be lawfully killed even if they surrender. Speaking of which, one popular justification made by Cromsky and those likeminded is to say that bin Laden was unarmed and tried to surrender. Although partially correct (he was unarmed), there was no record of him ever trying to surrender to the special forces. In fact, he even went on to use his many wives as human shields, something a man who wishes to surrender would most likely never do. There is also the moral side of the argument, where bin Laden’s death is also justifiable. Should the leader of a mass-terror group which has not only put into harms way thousands if not millions of people as well as publicly and proudly claimed its responsibility in these events have a trial? Does having a trial do justice to the millions of people that were targeted by Al Qaeda? Does giving this murderer of a man even the slimmest of chances of being declared “free” give justice to the thousands of innocent Americans like Cromsky who’s lives were ended due to the horrid dreams of another? One would think the clear answer is “no,” and that his death was in fact not even a severe enough punishment for his wrongdoings. 

Ultimately, Cromsky pushes some flawed attempts to try and put a new spin on the viewpoint of 9/11. However, the claims mostly all come out with little evidence to back up the arguments (the “essay” is posted on the Huffingtonpost, not the most trusted source in the world), stating vague statements and polls which don't really do much other than try and persuade.