Phaedrus Summaries

Phaedrus Part I

The language in Phaedrus confuses me. In the beginning it seems as though Socrates is playing a mind game with Phaedrus, at first he wants him to recite the speech from memory, but then Socrates notices the scroll and asks him to read it. There is a long monologue about the lover and non-lover, I assume they are speaking about communication. Phaedrus reads Lysis and then discusses how the non-lover is preferred for his ability to be his own person, and a stronger friend. Phaedrus seems to be saying true rhetoric does not spoil, is honest, and not a fickle friend.

Phaedrus part II

Since, Phaedrus focused on the non-lover in his discourse, Socrates believes it is important to go through the characteristics of the lover. Socrates talks about there are two human principles. These principles are desire and judgment. He discusses how following judgment is for the better, but desire can be a hindrance. He then discusses the noble madness of love. He uses the analogy of the chariot and horses. The one horse is upright and guided by words and motion. He is loving, honorable, and modest. The other horse is deaf, proud and insolent. I think the point of this passage is there are two kinds of rhetoric. Rhetoricians can use judgment and follow words and guidance, or they can use desire and not listen to others and stand proud even with lack of knowledge.

Phaedrus part III

In the last section, what stood out most to me was the discourse on the importance and power of the art of rhetoric. They discuss the potential of rhetoric’s influence in public meetings, but also how in these meetings rhetoric may be manipulated and/or superficial for the benefit of the speaker. Phaedrus asks how true the art of rhetoric can be achieved. Socrates discusses how this is not just something that can be learned as an art, but rhetoric is also a gift. Socrates also discusses how it is similar to medicine, as it is words of virtue that feed the soul, and that is found in truth. This section was the easiest for me to understand because I felt it was relatable, we often have superficial discourse, and truth is something that is helpful for the soul to consume.

Johannesen Ch.4

Dialogical Perspectives

This chapter had a lot of interesting information and perspectives on human communication. The difference between monologue and dialogue is clearly defined by various theorists and writers. I had never considered the differences between the two.

The part that most struck me was the section on dialogue and persuasion. In the beginning of the chapter, I thought that the differences between dialogue and monologue was portrayed rather extremely. Since, in dialogue you are going to be aware of the others ideas, views and interests, how will they be aware of yours? True dialogue seems nearly impossible. The dialogue and persuasion section addressed that an individual may express disagreement or persuade, but still be participating in dialogue.

I agreed with Richard M. Weaver that humans are prone to persuade and be persuaded. That is why commercials, advertisements, and debates are so prominent in our society. I do not think that all persuasion is unethical. Monologue may not be the appropriate way to persuade individuals.

While reading this section I thought of evangelizing Christians. Evangelists persuade people to accept Jesus Christ; this is not usually done in an unethical and objectifying way. God calls us to spread the word, and in discussing our views and explaining our beliefs we are trying to persuade. This does not make it a monologue though. We can listen to the others views to understand what is different and similar in their beliefs.

I thought this chapter had a lot of information that's valuable when analyzing conversations and media. It made me think of the types of conversation I have had with my peers, professors, and family. Have I ever objectified someone in conversation? Have others approached me in monologue? What about public relations, is that an unethical career because of its purpose in persuasion? These are just some of the questions that came to my mind.

Johannesen Ch.3

This chapter discussed the human nature perspective of ethical communication. This chapter was packed with information about why we choose what is ethical and unethical, and what in our humanity makes it so.

Humans use symbols, rationality, persuasion, and judgment in deciding ethical values. For me this chapter felt abstract. Referring to humans as animals made the concepts harder for me to relate to.

The part of this section that most stood out to me was on page 40, it discussed persuasion. Our responsibilities to ourselves and others assess instances of persuasion. Our obligations to ourselves are openness and resoluteness. I never have really thought of holding an opinion as an ethical persuasion standard.

Being open is something I think more people need to be aware of. I have always struggled with one-sided opinions and people unwilling to address other world-views. As Christians, I think it is our duty to be more open to other ideas. In a Christian environment people tend to go with the trends and not hear other sides, but we must understand that being open can help us further understand, communicate, and persuade more clearly to those with differing views. On top of that we have our resoluteness to fall back on.

The duty to others ethically in communication is also important, gentleness and compassion. I think in the Christian community we throw out the word compassion often, but do not know what it means. Compassion is selfless, and not done with alternative motives. This creates more ethical implications. For example, is serve day done out of compassion, to persuade non-profits they are worthy of our time, or is George Fox University persuading the public that it is a school that reaches out?

Gentleness is to persuade without violence. The example that I thought of well reading this was the protest at the Lure exotic club on 99w. Students rallied against the club for its "School Girls" themed night. This was not violent, but was it gentle? I am not sure.

The other thing I found intriguing about this chapter is the assumptions we make in our communication, are these assumptions accurate? Are the sources credible? Is what we are being told coming for the benefit of humankind and not just as a means for personal gain? This chapter repeats that lying, anything said in deceit, is unethical. I agree, I have always been raised not to lie, and I find it tacky. It makes communication more blurred and complex than is necessary. Although, we still assume people lie to us?

My question is are their times when lying could be considered ethical? What in our human nature makes us think that deceit is acceptable?

Journalism Barbie

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/29398/journalism-barbie-marks-the-end-of-real-news/

This was just something I saw, and thought it would be interesting to write about as a journalism major.

This article really offended me. I do not believe Barbie becoming a journalist makes my profession irrelevant. Journalism is changing and impacting society more than ever through fast streamed articles and social networking.

This statement offended me:

"It seems as though the girls who used to be obsessed with Barbies grew up into journalists and voted this new doll into existence. Whenever I meet an astoundingly dumb, over-dressed female, it almost invariably comes up that she majored in journalism. It seems the journalism major is the new psych major. And now we’re all on Lexapro."

I consider myself a smart and intellectual individual. In order to be successful in journalism you have to have a competitive edge. Maybe these "dumb" individuals want a career in entertainment, that is not the whole of the journalism profession.

This stereotype of young dumb females creates a great communication barrier. I think that this author expressed sexist views, and as someone contributing to a journalistic outlet he should be more respectful of the profession.

Johannesen Ch. 1

In Johannesen’s first chapter, he discussed ethical responsibility in human communication. He connects ethics to communication by saying that the ethical dimensions of communication cannot be discredited. These techniques and ethical standards may be debatable, but they still exist.

In communication there is a sender and a receiver. Senders must find a golden mean to adapt to their receiver or audience. Is adapting to an audience an ethical implication? How do we avoid this? In communication classes, I have always been taught to review my audience, take in their demographics and their cultural differences, then adjust my message to be more suitable. Johannesen suggests that in doing this it is possible to lose the message entirely, or to not adapt to our audience makes the message unrelatable.

He connects the ideas of freedom, responsibility, intention, sincerity, morality, integrity, and character with communication ethics. He explains how each of these plays a factor in how we judge the ethicality of a communicator and his or her message. Does our judgment change because the questionable ethical content of the message was unintentional? Or is she or he free from the ethical standards because the message was said with sincerity?

I found several things interesting in this chapter. I liked how Johannesen mentioned that with the freedom of speech you could not decrease responsibility. Instead, responsibility and freedom work together, and communicators should respect their freedom and take responsibility as the “consequence” of that freedom. I think this is a low price. I also found Karen Lebacqz’s statement intriguing, “Our choices about what to do are also choices about whom to be.” Our actions explain our character, if our actions are insincere or unintentional this can disrupt our image.

I noticed this chapter did not mention the cultural ethical differences. He discusses the different meanings of western and eastern ideas of sincerity, but not the other values. How would an insincere message or the right of free speech differ in various cultures?

Schultze Chapter 5

Slaves to Sin

In this section Schultze describes how sin transforms our communication. He discusses it as a "glamorous weapon of destruction". We put aside our gift of communication and use it against each other. Common examples Schultze uses are: being convinced we are right, corruption, domination and greed.

Since the fall of humanity, we have had communication struggles. It is always better to get ahead, be right, be better, than to work out with the skills of communication. Businesses lure in individuals with communication with products that are not beneficial for them.

Even, though I agree with using communication negatively, I again find a disagreement with Schultze's view. I think education on communication can help and create a better communicating environment. And while the ideas of joyful music, drama, and prose sounds lovely, it is again creating a selfish reality (84). It is important to understand their is evil and I think communicating darkness, is a good way to create change.

Question: Other than sin, for secularists, what creates "immoral" communication? What are ways to overcome immoral communication?

Schultze Chapter 4

Symbolic Ambiguity

Symbolic Ambiguity is what complicates our communication. We interpret things differently, such as the Bible. We then form denominations with similar interpretations. Communication is influenced by the concept of postmodernism, people create their own realities. This can disrupt the Christian faith and spirituality. Augustine had suggests knowing the author, understanding text (message), and the context. Due to our own realities, Schultze explains how we lose fellowship with God. However, Schultze believes with our symbolic entropy God does positive things.

Communication is a God-given gift according to Schultze. People are given the gift of crafting and/or delivering messages according to Augustine. Schultze believes that in order to partake in Shalom we should use our gifts for peaceful and forgiven communication, not petty squabbles and gossip.

Schultze also discusses the use of communication through technology. He talks about how we use our time, energy, and resources. This is one of the aspects I agree with Schultze on. While, technology has played a prominent role in our communication, making it more accessible, it can also be a hinderance. Since we are taking in so many images, thoughts and ideas from the internet it can sometimes weaken our shalom. And not let the cyber world take over our ability to communicate interpersonally with others.

Question:

Schultze uses primarily Christian examples for the ideas of symbolic ambiguity. Is there anything else, morally or ethically wise that symbolic ambiguity can affect?