Question # 2

I have no doubt that the pragmatic perspective has a certain degree of validity. About how a relationship with another individual is sort a game. Anyone that has ever been in a romantic relationship could concur with this fact. An example could be you and your significant other got into a fight. It could be about a big thing or a small thing, but it really doesn’t matter. They get angry and you get angry, it’s an endless cycle. Each party is waiting for the other to cave and admit fault. So I do agree this perspective to a certain extent. The problem with this perspective it doesn’t take feelings and certain cultures into account. But for the most part I do feel that communication with other could be considered a game. But this perspective does have things different than a game. A game has a winner. But in life there doesn’t always have to be a winner. Sometimes just losers.

Question #1

The Social Constructionist is an interesting perspective. The book defines it as “communication is not something that goes on between individuals, but is something that surrounds us and holds the world together”. I do believe this to be true. Most of the news that we get is from mass media such as newspapers, the internet, and television. We as people don’t for the most part see news happening, but sometimes we do. For the most part we depend on mass media to inform us as a society. How we as a society “build worlds” is we relay info through the mass media. We build worlds by communication. In the book it says that what we learn about other people’s culture is not first hand, but we learn by communicating with others. Some of the things that we have in our culture that some other cultures do not have could include freedom of speech. Some other cultures do not have this. It is kind of bitter sweet. Some speech we might agree with, but some other forms of speech are dangerous. But as a whole I think freedom of speech is great thing to have. You may not agree with what I am saying, but you have the right to challenge my beliefs, and that is the most important part of all.

Question # 3

One of the most fascinating parts of Chapter 2 in my opinion is the use of symbols in communication. The subject in general in Chapter2 is just briefly discussed in the beginning and I find this fascinating. Let me give you an example. Lets say I go to a foreign country like Germany or Russia. I am not there with someone that speaks the native tongue and basically I have no idea what’s going on. Even though I might not speak the native tongue, I know a circle with a cross in the middle means not to do the act in question or I could tell what a stop sign looks like. You might not speak the native language but by doing simple gestures to the natives’ the message can be received. Another example could be you’re at home and you see a family member sick on the couch. You ask them if the are ok and the give you the ok sign. This is what I find fascinating. This is an example how you could say so much by doing so little.

Question # 3

In my opinion one of the most important facts about chapter one was about evolving nature of communication during the medieval and Renaissance era. The two most important ways of convincing others were in the form of preaching and reading. Due to the fact that most people back in the day couldn't read or write it was important to have at least one person there that was educated. A king would have someone on staff that knew how to write and would have that person write laws that the kingdom had to obey.
The second important way of convincing others back in the good old days was preaching. Since many people were illiterate a preacher was needed to interpret the bible. So this was a powerful position, due to the fact that they could basically tell their audience what they believe to be the true interpretation of the bible. which might be a falsehood.

In my own opinion one doesn’t need to have any morality to be able to persuade others as an orator. The only quality one must have is the ability to get people to hang on one’s every word. I’m not saying that to be a great orator you have to have no ethics, but if you look at such dictators such as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin they were fantastic orators, and had no ethical values. The only quality is you need to appeal to the audience that your talking to. One must give a message or a plan to what the audience feels is the correct course. In my opinion there is no correlation between truth, good, or public communication. An example of this could be religious figures. They use such a positive as not judging people or basically be good people to each other. But they could flip that message to spread hate or to settle a vendetta. So no I don’t believe this to be true.

George Carlin

One speaker than i admire is considered to be one of the greatest stand-up comedians of all times, George Carlin. But he was more than just a stand-up comedian, some could say that George Carlin was a philosopher. His ability to persuade people was from logos. When he would make a point he would apply logic to his theories that he had on the subject on question. George Carlin would take things that we never really question and would break it down. Even if you removed all the jokes from his comedy there is still message that is worth listening to.
For my own style of persuasion I feel that I fit into the logos category. I try to use logic when trying to make any argument. I don’t try to persuade people through emotion or fear. An example of this is just turn on Fox News any time and they try to make points by scaring their audience.
I feel that Aristotle’s communication model does work for Carlin because he uses Logos so well. In his act do he does ethos because he is known to tell it like he sees it.