Midterms
Just got done with my Western Rhetorical theory midterm.
Essay test, and I picked correctly which of the 5 essays Pat was going to use.
An idea I have toying with for a while now is abstraction to concrete understanding of an idea.
An abstract idea is a word like Justice. It would be impossible to expect all the people that read that word to understand it the same. It is very vague and since there are little constraints on what exactly I mean by Justice, a viewer has to fill in the blanks and the context to what I am getting at based on what frame I place the term. I.E. why we ask to use words in a sentence, it gives it a reference in regard to other words we know. An abstracted thing can be good or bad, and needs concrete context to base the judgement.
The problem is that there is an infinite options to discount, and the arguments to discount all the possible outcomes sometimes will be weak because they HAVE to be stated but are probably not revelent or they are flawed because they are partially tied to your claim. The gray area is not achknowledged using abstract assumptions.
A concrete idea is something that is like a fact. There is little discussion about what exactly I am talking about, and there is very little for a viewer to fill in the blank. Across the board, viewers of the idea should be able to understand what is being conveyed. I.E. If I was to talk about the Terms of Service of Livejournal. Now there maybe be abtractions made about the intereprations of it, but most people would know exactly what it was and where it was. A concrete thing can not really be good or bad, because that is in the realm of abstraction.
What I have been thinking about it how we get to this understanding or level of abstract/concrete. We talk about concrete thinking by eliminating all other possible options to be left with one possible understanding of the idea so all that is left is our claim. If there was 52 cards in a deck, and I took all the red cards and all the even cards, and then I took out all the cards higher than 2 and then I took out the all the spades. I would be left with the ace of clubs.
The problem is that there other options to consider, but we are going looking to the things that fall into evidence and are concrete. We have to use the logic given to use, which can be bitter since we do not have any room for discussion and abstraction.
Bottomline: Another dualism that we have to choose...lame
The other way of getting to this claim would be if I said I only wanted to have a card that is black, odd, lower than 2, and had to be a club. Then I would have the ace of clubs.
Essay test, and I picked correctly which of the 5 essays Pat was going to use.
An idea I have toying with for a while now is abstraction to concrete understanding of an idea.
An abstract idea is a word like Justice. It would be impossible to expect all the people that read that word to understand it the same. It is very vague and since there are little constraints on what exactly I mean by Justice, a viewer has to fill in the blanks and the context to what I am getting at based on what frame I place the term. I.E. why we ask to use words in a sentence, it gives it a reference in regard to other words we know. An abstracted thing can be good or bad, and needs concrete context to base the judgement.
The problem is that there is an infinite options to discount, and the arguments to discount all the possible outcomes sometimes will be weak because they HAVE to be stated but are probably not revelent or they are flawed because they are partially tied to your claim. The gray area is not achknowledged using abstract assumptions.
A concrete idea is something that is like a fact. There is little discussion about what exactly I am talking about, and there is very little for a viewer to fill in the blank. Across the board, viewers of the idea should be able to understand what is being conveyed. I.E. If I was to talk about the Terms of Service of Livejournal. Now there maybe be abtractions made about the intereprations of it, but most people would know exactly what it was and where it was. A concrete thing can not really be good or bad, because that is in the realm of abstraction.
What I have been thinking about it how we get to this understanding or level of abstract/concrete. We talk about concrete thinking by eliminating all other possible options to be left with one possible understanding of the idea so all that is left is our claim. If there was 52 cards in a deck, and I took all the red cards and all the even cards, and then I took out all the cards higher than 2 and then I took out the all the spades. I would be left with the ace of clubs.
The problem is that there other options to consider, but we are going looking to the things that fall into evidence and are concrete. We have to use the logic given to use, which can be bitter since we do not have any room for discussion and abstraction.
Bottomline: Another dualism that we have to choose...lame
The other way of getting to this claim would be if I said I only wanted to have a card that is black, odd, lower than 2, and had to be a club. Then I would have the ace of clubs.