Final Essay: Nathan Brown

As Oliver Cromwell prepared his army to pursue the Irish across a river, he gave some advice.  “Put your trust in God,” he entreated, “but mind you, keep your powder dry.”  Both before and after Cromwell’s time, faithful people have faced the paradox of both trusting in the Divine and valuing the secular.  One of the most common areas we see this is in rhetoric.  How much artistic license do we have to make God’s word not only divinely inspired, but also aesthetically pleasing? 

Looking from the Judeo-Christian perspective, rhetoric and religion have always been intertwined.  The Hebrews frequently used poetry, chiasmus, and other literary devices in their sacred texts.  This may have been because of divine direction, but it was also easier in an oral culture for people to remember religious texts if parallelisms, metaphors, and other literary tools were employed. 

Unfortunately, some would use their eloquence to impress others instead of for spiritual enlightenment.  This practice became so common that Jesus warned, “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men” (Matt. 6:5).  Unfortunately, many Christians today interpret this to mean that we should eschew any rhetorical style, focusing only on content.  However, Jesus himself was rhetorically eloquent, as evidenced by his famous parables.  Christ would have agreed with the fourth century A.D. Christian, St. Augustine, when Augustine wrote, “A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently.”  Many early Apostles and Christians followed Christ’s lead, producing a wonderfully rich New Testament from which we constantly draw sources of inspiration.

Today, it is difficult to strike a balance.  Street-corner preachers catch the attention, but don’t inspire the heart.  Yet, sermons shouldn’t be boring.  Personally, I struggled with this issue.  I loved giving verbose talks in church, but sometimes I did it for the wrong reason so I began to focus solely on content.  During one religion class, my professor began to preach robustly and truthfully.  I realized that if God had given me the gift of speech, then I would be burying my talent if I didn’t use it.  Drawing largely on Christ’s style of teaching, I realized that we can be rhetorically expressive if our aim is to inspire others to worship God more faithfully. 

The Cost of Chemistry: The Struggle Between Amateurs and Professionals

Biochemistry: Investigating Organism's Chemical Reactions

It was during my final year of high school that I had my first real-world chemistry test.  I had been working in a university laboratory when the head professor showed me a list of gases that my test subject was producing and asked, “Which of these chemicals burn?”  He caught me open-mouthed.  You try picking from a list of twenty chemicals that include names like “Perchloroethylene” and “1,3-butadiene”.  I wanted to ask him if he would make it a multiple choice response. Hurriedly, I scanned it and was relieved to see something I recognized from the gas station: octane.  “Octane,” I replied reservedly.  “Good.  What else?” he responded.  As a university student majoring in biochemistry, I have quickly recognized that chemistry is an exclusive field because of the complexity of the subject matter, the academic language and the cost.  However, amateur scientists have made significant discoveries in the past and will continue to do so. Although expertise in the field of biochemistry is important, the chemistry community needs to improve their academic and organizational infrastructure to accommodate amateur scientists because, with cheaper emerging technologies, amateur scientist’s work can lead to breakthroughs in the field.

           

               

Annotated Working Draft of Final Project and Hotspots in Biochemistry

Component Assignments:

1. Communication and Persuasion in Biochemistry
   In this post, I explained the common lack of enthusiasm for chemistry and biochemistry among the majority of people.  I also explained my own struggles to break into the chemical field because of the new vocabulary. 
2. Storytelling in Biochemistry
   I demonstrated the gap between discovering new technology or breakthroughs and the application of these new discoveries.  Though scientists are on a constant quest for greater knowledge, they are also very skeptical and sometimes slow to accept change.  I sought to inspire those in the field to quickly confirm and accept or disprove and reject new theories. 
3. Biochemistry within the History of Civilization
   Biochemistry is a very new field relative to the sciences, but chemistry has its roots as far back as humans can remember.  In an interview with a BYU chemistry professor, I found out that the goal of biochemists is to discover exactly how everything works in the human body and how to positively manipulate it.    
4. Institutional Authority and Communication in Biochemistry
   While writing this, I learned how organizations like the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) regulate the chemical field.  With frequent journals, annual conferences and the power of funding distribution in their hands, this organization and others regulate and influence biochemist across the country.  

Hot Spots

• Hotspot #1 (personal): Making chemistry language more accessible.  In my education, I have had a difficult time trying to understand and contribute when I am barely learning the jargon.  Other people are similarly intimidated, especially outside of the field, and they feel alienated and become suspicious of chemistry.
• Hotspot #2 (field/personal/historical): Drawing upon the example of Leeuwenhoek who discovered the first bacteria, but was a draper by trade, the biochemistry field needs to be prepared to allow for "amateur" scientists.  New technology (like organic material 3D printers) are becoming cheaper.  Our field needs to have the infrastructure to keep up.
• Hotspot #3 (field): With the advent of "amateur" scientists, chemistry regulatory agencies need to come out of the dark.  Of course, the agencies will have to monitor scientists, but they should also offer grants and scholarships in order to maintain a positive image.  

Institutional Authority and Communication in Biochemistry

Jeff Jansberry walked into the final conference ceremony with his nerves a tingle and a slight line of perspiration around his collar.  Although he had heard of a flood of meetings hosted by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the first annual meeting he had been invited to.  Once a year, the Society would convene in April to talk about new research, recognize distinguished accomplishments in the fields and award grant money [influential event]. 

“Jeff, come join us over here!” shouted the too-jovial Dr. Mike Wallace. 

“Well, hello, Dr. Wallace.”

“I told you, call me Mike”, he said, offering a glass of champagne.  “Do you know that this society, the Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, has been around for more than 100 years?” roared the doctor [authoritative organization].  “We are the scientist that delve into the depths of science where no man has gone before, into the ribosomes and rNA and genes, and we…publish papers.  What have you published lately, Jeff?”

“Uhhm, well, I’m working on publishing about a new project in my laboratory.  We are working with cyclotides and gene-“

“Better start publishing soon if you want someone to remember your name,” Dr. Wallace interrupted.  “When I was your age, I had already published in all three of the society’s research journals.  If you haven’t got many important discoveries to tell, they have a monthly journal too, ya’ know?” [authoritative publication]. 

“Yes, I did in fact know… “  Jeff grasped around the room for a conversation starter.  “Do you know many of the people here?”

“Of course!  I know the President and most of the council members.  Oh, there’s the President-Elect at the second table.  Nine council members, a President, a President-Elect, and a past-President.  Very good people to have as friends” [regulating standard].

“Well, Dr. Wallace, I mean, Mike, I better go make some friends,” Jeff replied in an attempt to disentangle himself from the conversation.

“Just remember, Jeff, play the game by their rules or they will cut your funding,” blurted Dr. Wallace [challenging authority/changing standards].  “I wouldn’t want you to end up like the last nobody." 

Biblical Eloquence in Galatians 2

The eloquent passage of Galatians 2:17-21 is filled with the complexities common in Paul’s epistles.  Paul begins this chapter by talking about the long tradition of circumcision and why it wasn’t necessary for everyone.  He also explores the paradox of how some people who profess to be moral people act less worthy of that designation than those who are looked down upon in society.  At the end of this chapter (about halfway through his letter), he begins this line of Christian reasoning. 

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

One of the most powerful rhetorical tools Paul uses is in verse 17: anthypophora.  Anthypophora is asking a question and then immediately answering it.  It is like reasoning to yourself out loud.  This makes Paul’s rhetoric more powerful than explaining the questions answer without the question because it engages the audience and makes them wake up for a moment.  For most in the congregation, they would have thought for a second and said to themselves, “It’s absurd that Christ is the minister of sin?”  Anthypophora conjures up the audience’s own emotion by posing a question to

them.

One of the topic of invention that Paul always employs is cause and effect.  He constantly points out the consequences of his choices.  He begins three phrases with “for”, which signifies “because” (verses 18,19, 21).  He is asking that the Galatians contemplate what will happen from their own decisions.

Going hand in hand with cause and effect, incrementum or auxesis is found from verses 18 to 20 (in red).  Auxesis is basically climax.  Paul starts out with the cause and effect of destroying what he has built.  For that, he would be a transgressor.  If he is dead to the law, then he will live in God.  When he is crucified with Christ, he lives.  The ending is also an example of hyperbole.  Paul wasn’t crucified with Christ, but crucifixion was such a painful and socially humiliating process that it would make quite an impression on his audience.  If they had zoned out, they would be listening now.  Using climax ending in hyperbole makes his cause and effect much more powerful.

Through the use of anthypophora, climax and hyperbole under the topic of invention of cause and effect, Paul transforms what could have been a typical speech of Christ and consequences into a piercing sermon of the blessing of Christ’s life-giving ability.

Biochemistry within the History of Civilization

Fire, earth, air, water.  These are the four elements of every substance that exists theorized Empedocles during the fifth century B.C.  In our day, we know that there are a lot more than four elements on the periodic table, but the story of Empedocles illustrates a point.  His theory would go relatively unchallenged for almost two millennia until other scientists stepped into the ring to test his ideas.  While biochemistry and organic chemistry are new fields, chemistry has deep roots and a tradition of challenging the current theory of what we accept for granted. 

Biochemistry

Biochemistry is a very new scientific field.  Biochemistry branched off of organic chemistry which branched off of chemistry.  Biochemistry involves chemistry within cells and biological organism. 

We want to understand how and why everything happens in an organism so we can beneficially manipulate it.  When I interviewed Dr. Joshua Price, an organic chemist, at Brigham Young University, he stated that biochemistry started with Watson and Crick, the scientist who discovered the double helix structure in the 1950s.  After that monumental discovery, some chemist shifted their focus to nucleic acids, histones and gene coding. 

Organic Chemistry

But the notion that we can recreate biological systems originated from organic chemistry.  Before the 19^th century, chemists believed that there was a special life force property belonging to molecules and atoms that made up living organisms.  They believed that you couldn’t reproduce that life force.

Then came Friedrich Wohler.  In the early 1800s, he synthetically producing urea, proving that we could mix chemicals in a lab and form a molecule that humans, plants and animals use (http://www.famousscientists.org/friedrich-wohler/).  This revolutionized the entire thought process of chemistry and led to the divide between organic and inorganic chemistry.

Ancient Chemistry

However, I should be quick to note that none of these discoveries would have been made without the basis of the Greeks.  The Greeks were the first who attempted to define our world in elements.  We’ve already talked about Empedocles, but there are myriads more.  Democritus explained that the world is built up of infinitesimally small particles that cannot be divided or destroyed.  He termed this atomos, which was later named “atom”.  Aristotle was the first scientist after Empedocles that actually tried to categorize objects into their respective elements of earth, air, water and fire.  Our efforts to create a Periodic Table of Elements would mirror his.  At the heart of it, chemistry has always been a way to explain what seems mysterious and will always be so.  In one sense, it is the creation story of humanity.    

My First Spanish Blunder

Kairos/Audience: I generally tell this among family and friends when I want to share a humorous story about my mission and my troubles with the language.  I tell it more often among LDS groups because they usually relate better to it.  It is a light, funny story and is told during parties or group gatherings. 

It was a hot, summer day in the middle of the Mormon colonies in northern Mexico so the cool air that greeted us as we walked in the chapel was more than welcome.  We were assailed by the raucous calls of teenage friends to each other and the general commotion you get when you stuff three hundred adolescents in a small church.  As young Mormon missionaries who had only recently graduated from that school called “adolescencia” ourselves, it was a little awkward to find the middle ground between approachable and respectable.  Thankfully, we made it through the throng to the main podium to await a group of two hundred youth.

Now, there were four of us.  The other three were well-seasoned, having spent at least a full year in Mexico, one almost having completed his two year mission.  I was the exception of the group, rather than the rule.  I had been in Mexico for less than two months.  Our small band had been asked by a group of leaders of our church to give two or three short presentations during EFY.  It was a great opportunity and I accepted that my speaking time would be limited.

I quickly learned that at each presentation, we had to introduce ourselves.  The first couple times, I gave a very basic introduction, “Hi, I’m Elder Brown.  I’m from Montana and I’ve been in Mexico two months.”  But I noticed the older missionaries sharing cool stories and I wanted to, too.  I studied Spanish in high school and thought I could handle it.  The third time, I said, “I have a story about a vieja [old lady]”, who didn’t recognize me and thought I had a twin running around in Mexico.  As soon as I said the word, the audience erupted in laughter.  In high school Spanish, “vieja” means old lady.  In Mexico, it means really sexy lady.  In that area, I went down in history as the first missionary to talk about really sexy ladies from the pulpit. (335 words)

Retelling the Story:

“Open Your Mouth…”

Kairos/Audience: Appropriate for an audience not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  This story comically teaches how we kindness can comfort us and make us improve.

The rowdy teenagers all roared together in a chorus of laughter after the initial, collective gasp.  I didn’t know what to say.  I didn’t know what I said [parallelism].  “Sticks and stones will break my bones…”, I thought to myself [proverb][anapodoton].  I shrugged it off with a smile and nervous laughter, and finished as best I could.  As I sat down again, my older and more experienced companion whispered, “Sorry, I should have taught you that already.”

As a nineteen year-old Mormon missionary having lived in Mexico for only two months, I had just had my first very public mistake speaking Spanish.  The other three missionaries that were with me had been in my shoes, but were since long past my point of linguistic inexperience [degree].  Our small group had been asked to present a small message two or three times to groups of two hundred adolescents attending a church youth camp and during one of these I had worked up the courage to introduce myself a little more grandiosely.  “One day, there was a woman who we knew that waved us over.  Because I was wearing glasses that day, she asked me ‘Where is your twin who doesn’t wear glasses?’.  That’s when I told the vieja [old lady] that I was the same person.”  And that’s when it happened. 

In high school textbooks, old lady is translated ‘vieja’.  In Mexico, it isn’t.  There, it actually means sexy lady, much to my dismay.  In Mormonism, we have a sacred text that says, “Open your mouth and it shall be filled…” [authority].  “I just don’t know what it will be filled with”, I muttered.  As the room shrank around me [personification], a counselor of the group with warm, brown eyes jumbled towards me. I can still remember his eyes. They were windows into his pure heart [metaphor]. “You speak very good Spanish for two months”, he complimented me without any hint of irony. Then, he turned away. But he had already turned my day around. “Open your mouth and it shall be filled …” “I just don’t know what it will be filled with”, I mused. (354 words).

Personal Story Catalog- Nathan Brown

1)      My First Social Spanish Blunder in an EFY [travel story, misperception story, humorous].  I tell this story to let others know in a comical way that we don’t usually know as much as we think do.

2)      Story of naming the first dog I ever had each family member choosing one single letter and putting them together [story of planned vs. spontaneous, animal story].  I like to tell this story to show how randomness in life usually leads to our benefit.

3)      The story of how the Rocha Family, an investigator family in Mexico, gained a spiritual witness at the same time in prayer [religious story about prayer, story about family unity, spiritual awakening story].  I love to retell this story to future missionaries to show them the spiritual experiences they have.  I also love to tell it so others can see that God exists and does answer our prayers.

4)      The story of when I gave my mom six “Adopt a child for free” coupons for Mother’s Day so we could have a full baseball team in our family (I have two brothers) [childhood innocence story, athletic story, personal motives story].  This reminds me and those who I tell it to that we should always consider other’s feelings and desires before our own (especially on Mother’s Day).  It also reminds us that baseball is the best sport EVER!

5)      Story of when I had to move in fifth grade after assuming that I would never move [story about embracing change, story about overcoming obstacles, choosing the positive].  From this story, we remember that even when unexpected changes come into our lives, they often introduce positive aspects that we should embrace.

6)      The story of when I won a Little League baseball tournament, but took a picture with my brother of me not smiling [brotherly relations story, story about holding onto regrets].  Using this story, I teach others that we should always have the best feelings between our siblings and show it or else we will have many regrets in the future.

7)      The story of going out of my comfort zone to speak and win my first Speech and Debate tournament [story of self-confidence, story of success].  This story encourages people to break out of their shells and realize that even people who are very experienced in one area started as beginners, too.

8)      The story of my dad and I playing light tag after a Seattle Mariners game [story about fathers, story about childhood, story about memories].  I like to tell people, especially parents, this story to illustrate that the short moments we set aside to do small things can turn into profound memories for our kids.

9)      The story about my BYU study abroad to Nauvoo and how we truly experienced the law of consecration together [story about group unity, religious story, story about history and sacrifice].  This story explains a change of heart I had of becoming a believer in the law of consecration and the extreme power of a united group of people.

10)   The story about having to sever ties with my friends my senior year of high school in order to keep my standards [sad story of personal confidence, story about the importance of morals, story about continuing strong friendships].  I like to relate this story to the younger generation to exemplify how we are morally strong enough to stand up for our beliefs.  It also shows that true friendship endures the ups and downs of life.

Storytelling in Biochemistry

Foreword

In the field of biochemistry, academic papers or posters are the main mediums we use to communicate among specialists.  Occasionally, a scientist may convene a conference to share an important discovery.  On each poster or embedded in each paper, the calculated numbers tell the story of a nondescript molecule reacting with another, which isn’t the type of fairy tale you would tell your kids at bedtime.  The more effective use of stories are anecdotes from our past that inspire our future decisions.  My freshman year, I was a little annoyed to learn about earlier scientists like Niels Bohr, J.J. Thomson and John Dalton when all I would need to know in the future are the equations.  As I learned about these scientists, I realized that each had defied common thought of the time.  It was the common thread that linked all of their work.  This next true story shows how as scientist we need to accept change as it is discovered.

Story

As most scientifically minded men in the mid-19^th century, Ignaz Semmelweis was a combination of a doctor, chemist, physicist and biologist.  At one clinic, he found that a great percentage of women died of childbed fever after childbirth while other clinics had substantially less deaths due to this illness.  After comparing the clinics, he found the only difference was that the physicians in the other clinics washed their hands before delivering babies.  He insisted that his clinic adopt this practice and, despite professional grumblings, the mortality rate drastically decreased.  When he shared this discovery with the medical world, despite the evidence he had, they rejected his notions. 

Analysis

From this story, we learn that even when discoveries are made there can be a gap between scientific proof and widespread adoption and application of the new science.  Using this in a scientific setting can show scientist that we should at least consider new advances even when they contradict popular opinion.

Retelling the Story

At the news of his new ‘discovery’ the scientists around the room laughed.  “This is ridiculous”, “Absurd”, “No one will believe you, Ignaz”, they mocked.  And indeed, no one did.  Although Ignaz Semmelweis had caused a 90% drop in mother mortality in his small Hungarian clinic, creating one of the most successful clinics in that country, he would be ridiculed for this one practice.  His discovery: doctors who wash their hands lead to less patient sickness.  Beginning his employment in the small clinic, Semmelweis observed that doctors who washed their hands at another clinic had only a 4% mortality rate of mothers who had just given birth.  His clinic, which didn’t wash their hands, had a 10% mother mortality rate.  Today, that would mean that one out of every ten of your wives and daughters die in childbirth!  After insisting that his fellow doctors wash their hands, the rate of death decreased by 90%.  However, after showing his numerical evidence to the medical community, he was rejected as a quack.  How many lives could have been saved if the whole medical world had adopted this practice?  We will also reject new scientific discoveries that will save lives and increase the standard of living?

In this example, I started from the end of the story to initially interest the audience.  I also included actual percentages for those scientific friends who are listening.  I also tried to make it more personal by asking my audience to imagine their family members in a dirty 19^th century clinic.  Hopefully, after those final questions, other scientist will accept the new, counterintuitive discovery I am about to present.

Communication and Persuasion in Biochemistry

Science seems like an intimidating subject for many when looking at it from the outside.  When I respond to the question “What are you majoring in?” and I reply, “Biochemistry”, I usually get a reply resembling, “Oh, you’re one of those smart people.”  Actually, I’ve barely begun my undergraduate studies in my field, but as I am exposed to more and more I understand why people cringe when they hear the word “chemistry”.  You see, it may be a challenging subject, but it is the communicative gap, not the subject matter, that makes people remember their “worst class in high school”. 

Just this year, I took a lab biochemistry class.  Basically, I read a few academic papers and then report to a chemistry teacher about what I’ve learned.  I’ll be honest.  I understand maybe ten percent of what these scientist are trying to explain.  When they start putting numbers in the middle of words is when you’ve lost me.  Time and time again, I ask myself which will be harder to learn: Spanish or the language of organic chemistry.  The first day I tried to read these papers it reminded me of an experience from my senior year of high school.  I had started working part-time in a university laboratory looking at gaseous products produced by fungi.  After analyzing a promising fungus I found, the professor showed me a list of gases that the fungus was excreting.  “Which of these chemicals burn?”, he asked.  You try picking from a list of twenty chemicals that include names like “Perchloroethylene” and “1,3-butadiene”.  I wanted to ask him if he would make it a multiple choice response.  Thankfully, I came across ethanol and used it as my answer.  “Good,” replied the professor, “What else?...”

Although most of scientific jargon is employed so academics can be succinct and accurate, I feel that rhetoric is occasionally used as an elitist tactic to keep amateur researchers out of the professional ring.  Returning to the example of my current lab teacher, whenever I ask him to explain a concept I encountered in my reading, it makes sense as he uses common words and common sense.  However, when I read it, I still struggle mightily.  Perhaps my perception of scientific academia will change as I progress in my field.  For now, I’m still asking myself, “What in the world is 2-(methylamino)-5-chlorobenzophenone imine?”

Medical Trickle-Down

What does duct tape, a GPS, and a Jeep all have in common?  They were all invented first for military use and then were transferred over into civilian life.  Especially in a country with an emphasis on military prowess, much of our technological advancement is due military development.  This is not a foreign concept, though.  It was also common in ancient Rome.  

As I was researching Rome, I wanted to write about the medical life of the civilization.  Come to find out that most doctors in Rome were considered quacks, but surgeons were highly prized.  Most of the concoctions that the Romans tried to use for medicines were actually poisons, but they had a grasp on anesthetics.  Surgeons were employed extensively by the military and had tools and procedures that wouldn’t be changed for almost two millennia.  During surgical procedures, they would administer opium, henbane and mandrake to deaden pain and induce sleep.  All these medical advancements were due to Rome’s emphasis on its military.  Then, it became public in the civilian sphere.  Today, while we’ve come a long way from ancient Roman medical practices, we still have the same mentality.  It’s the military trickle-down effect.  All the research and development funding goes to the military because we have to protect our troops and from there civilians begin to build on it and diversify.  In more than two thousand years, our medical practices have changed, but our thinking hasn’t.   

Midterm Essays

4) Invention of Writing and the Medium of the Socratics 

As in any civilization, the invention of the alphabet and the rise of the written word greatly affected the Greeks and their way of thinking.  Great emphasis was placed on memory in Greek society.  A rhetorician who had mastered their topic of speech was often one who had memorized a plethora of facts about their subject from various sources.  With the advent of writing, it wasn’t as important to be well-versed, but well-read.  There were obvious benefits from this, such as greater autonomy.  With a common language and written system, ideas could be shared farther and to more diverse audiences.  The autonomy of written language would also prove for better national autonomy.  For example, ancient Greece was composed of independent city-states, but in rare fashion they banded together in the late 5^th century B.C. to defeat the Persians.  Later, Alexander the Great would lead Greece to conquer all of Persia, but he would be hindered when cultural and idiomatic barriers prevented his troops from fully meshing.  Such unification would have been difficult, if not impossible, without common writing and written military plans.

Despite the obvious benefits from the written language, many suffered from the movement away from rhetoric.  Famous Socratics, such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, each developed their own medium that favored their type of work.  For example, Aristotle dedicated himself to the naming of plants and animals.  The systematic nomenclature he developed relied upon writing so it could become widespread and generally accepted.  But he also used concise rhetoric to observe human phenomena such as: “We are what we repeatedly do… Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”  Plato and Socrates were even more heavily dependent on rhetoric, though Plato favored writing.  The goal of the Socratics was to find absolute truth.  They believed that one of the most efficient ways to find this truth was through dialectic rhetoric, or the conversing of two or more people.  Cross examination, soul-searching questions, and conflict ending in resolution all would lead to this truth.  Without the introspective dialogue, a reader must take the author’s theories of truth and mix them with their own notions of truth instead of taking the journey with the rhetorician to find absolute truth together.  In the eyes of the Socratics, though much was gained through writing, much of their objective was lost, lost in transcription.

5)  Greek Politics and Rhetoric

Ancient Greeks were judged primarily by two things: their ability to fight and their ability to speak.  When the weapons of choice were words rather than spears, the political stage turned into a battlefield.  As Dylan P. said, Greek citizens needed to know how to defend themselves.  Now, the tactics these people used would depend on the political melee they were entering.  Would they rely primarily on judicial reasoning to determine innocence or guilt in the Athenian courts or deliberative persuasion to determine how to organize the best “neighborhood watch” program on Greek row (ok, maybe we invented that)?  They may employ the authority of witnesses to sentence a criminal or perhaps the correlation of a past and future fact to expedite neighborhood legislation.  Whatever the case, Greeks needed to be well versed in rhetoric in order to make democracy function.  The new invention of democracy was established on the principle that the government would be partial to the majority voice of the people, which was only possible if the citizens were verbally adept. 

There were faults in the political realm with regards to rhetoric.  Because of the lack of emphasis on writing, it was easy to manipulate people using rhetoric.  We could see this, for example, in the court system.  If I was accused of theft, but I was a much more talented rhetorician than you, I could verbally outmaneuver you.  Without written evidence and testimonies of witness, it would be easy for me to prove myself “innocent”.  Essentially, my ethos established by my speaking ability would overrule the logos of your claims that I robbed you.  Putting ethos on a pedestal above that of logos and pathos was a chronic problem of Greek political society.  One day, a famous general, Scipio Africanus, was brought into court after blatantly killing another Greek.  While he was obviously guilty, Scipio was well-known for his victories in northern African, bequeathing him the title “Africanus”.  After the accusations of the prosecutor, Scipio stood and, for his defense, simply stated, “My name is Scipio Africanus”.  He was released without penalty.   Clearly, while rhetoric was the lifeblood of the political arena, it wasn’t always the healthiest medium through which justice was established.

We Laughed, We Cried

As the newly sustained president of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Russell M. Nelson had an interesting task in contrasting the previous talks.  The three previous speakers were the newly sustained members of the Twelve, who while sincere, were understandably overwhelmed.  I appreciated this sequence of speakers because it cast a different light on now-President Nelson.  I admit that in earlier conferences I had seen then-Elder Nelson as a stately, but lackluster speaker.  Judge me if you want, but I was never excited nor bored to hear Elder Nelson.  This time was different.   Whether you call it divine providence or the speaker stepping up to the plate, President Nelson seemed to radiate a new authority.  I clung to every word he said.  To use rhetorical terms, the kairos of the conference seemed to lend ethos to President Nelson, especially in a new leadership position.  Maybe I’ve had a change of heart, but I want to hear him speak again.

However, I do give credit to Russell M. Nelson for the ways in which he arranges his speeches.  He is generally considered a straightforward speaker.  Sunday was no exception, though it did have an emotional touch.  He began by explaining that he was friends, not just associates, with the recently deceased apostles.  This lead seamlessly into the exemplary reactions of those apostles’ widows.  Because he wasn’t initially explicit about it, he allowed his listeners to find the similarities between those faithful women in spite of their differences.  If those heart-wrenching stories weren’t enough to hold your attention, he displayed photos of each wife.  I watched my grandmother cry during this talk, both because of the loss of these men and the inspiring speech.  To follow up (just in case the audience didn’t get it) President Nelson listed off five or six different attributes that women should have.  I noticed how he divided this up between married and will-be-married women.  He gave several lists throughout the talk.

To make sure that he didn’t numb his audience, he included a personal humorous story about his own late wife.  After crying for a whole night, his wife, who had been comforting him, asked, “Are you done crying?”  While the comic relief was much needed, it drove home an important point.  We need this mix of tenderness and grit in women today.  I could easily say “Amen” after his talk.

"Fetch, Boy"

While talking about the dangers that Plato and Socrates warned against the nature of writing, I doubted that they could have imagined a society like ours.  Not only are we wholly reliant on writing (thank you, professors), but in our digital age it has taken on a completely different form. 

Texting is an obvious writing skill (yes, I do believe it is a skill) that has the tendency to reduce our use of oratory.  I use texting to communicate with my parents when I’m in class or they’re in meetings.  My friends and I use it when we want to share funny jokes, but we don’t want to interrupt them.  There are great uses for it.  However, I know a young man who frequently asks girls out on dates over text message.  Not just once, but multiple times.  When I told my dad this, he exclaimed, “Gone are the days of chivalry when a boy would actually ask a girl.”  It made me think: If a new trend conflicts with long-standing societal morals, then it should send up red flags.

Was It Really That Tragic?

One day later, I am still bewildered by the play Electra.  I’m currently taking my first theatre class and so I naturally began to notice different aspects of the drama (though I’m no expert).  While the play as a whole was done well, the ending left me saying “What?!” to myself.  The final line was a comedic punch line.  Can we not handle grief?  If something is sad, let it be sad.  I was all the more befuddled by the Greek dance that came out of nowhere.  The play was entirely commendable, but certainly had me confused because of the ending.

Now, I’m not supposed to give a huge theatre summary.  Changing the subject, I was also intrigued by a discrepancy in the text we read and the play.  As shown in the play, Electra weeps over the death of her mother.  In the text, I don’t remember that happening.  This is important because it helps decide if Electra is a Greek tragedy according to Aristotle’s rubric.  I would argue that, at least based on the text, it is not a tragedy because, while the play if full of death and betrayal, Electra does achieve her ultimate objective of revenge and no downfall seems to come.  If, as in the play, she does lament the death of her mother, then the play is a tragedy be

cause she realizes her folly too late to bring her mother back. 

Finally, to end on pathos, Electra’s emotional appeals don’t seem to change much.  While she does oscillate between persuading and mourning, her theatric “beat” doesn’t change.  She uses the same tactics over and over.  I think that it was supposed to be that way in Greek theatre.  Electra embodies the emotional, while other characters embody logos, ethos, or all three combined.  

Double Trouble

There are two different authors to analyze when examining Pericles’ funeral oration at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian war.  The obvious speaker is Pericles.  Primarily, he uses an emotional appeal (pathos) in epideitic speech to strengthen the morale of his fellow citizens.  Naturally, the kairos of this situation lends itself to an inspiring speech.  If I were an Athenian in the beginning years of a war, I imagine that I would ask myself, “Is it worth it to fight this war?”  Not only did he have great timing, but Pericles knew his audience well because he appealed to their sense of sophistication and civility.  For example, he said, “It is more the case of our being a model to others than of our imitating anyone else” (pg. 3, line 27-28).  The Athenians loved to think themselves a notch above the rest.  And there couldn’t have been a better circumstance, nor speaker.  Pericles had a well established reputation as a learned politician and a great military general (ethos).  The Greeks admired the ability to speak well and great physical prowess.  Pericles had both. 

                In addition to the setting of the speech, the form of the speech is intriguing.  As in many epideitic speeches, Pericles calls his listeners to their Athenian ancestors and the battles they fought.  But he interestingly dips into a more judicial, logos mode as he defends the reputation of his fallen troops.  “We ought to remember first is their gallant conduct against the enemy in defense of their native land.  They blotted out their evil with good…” (page 6, line 14-16).  Personally, I believe that most of his speech was deliberative.  In praising the education, military planning, and political system of Athens, Pericles seems, to me, to have been urging the legislators to continue upholding the standards of life that Athens enjoyed. 

               

The Persuasion of Silence

                Growing up in Montana, I experienced my teenage years in an area where I was the religious minority.  Religion, itself, was a minority.  I had a great group of friends, but they also asked a lot of questions.  You see, I was a part of the Speech and Debate team.  My friends had something to prove and I had something to defend.  There were many long bus rides where my friends and I would go back and forth on topics of religion.

                I remember one night in particular when, as we were traveling back to our hometown, that my friend Nick and I were talking.  Quickly, the conversation turned to what I believed.  He was a vehement agnostic.  We were in our teenage years and, like many teenagers, he had decided to rebel against the traditional views of his family.  Usually, our bus ride talks were calm and measured.  We had learned how to agree to disagree.  On this occasion, however, our talking got louder and louder until it drowned out much of the road trip chatter.  A bunch of our teammates around us began to lean in and listen.  I’ll be honest, he asked some hard questions and I didn’t know all the answers, though I tried to explain to the best of my abilities the importance of faith and trusting in things we can’t always see.  At one moment, he arrived at the pinnacle of his argument, exclaiming in a loud voice his final question.  He asked it to our newfound audience as much as to me.  Dead silence ensued.  It was that moment when you realize that you’re losing the argument, public opinion and you wonder if you’re losing the people around you. 

               

Persuade Up!!

The second book of the Iliad begins with an interesting line: “Jove was wakeful, for he was thinking how to do honour to Achilles” (lines 2-3).  The all-powerful god pondering over how to help a demigod who was living among mere mortals?  Jove must not have understood how the chain of command works.  It goes from top to bottom.  Our leaders and professors motivate us, which has led to the creation of company meetings and corny slogans.  Persuasion is always from the top down.

                

However, multiple times throughout the text, the Greeks appeal to the gods for aid.  For example, Agamemnon sacrifices a bull to Saturn before reengaging with Troy in line 403.  Now, the Greeks weren’t always successful in enlisting the help of the more powerful beings, but usually they were.  How did they do it?  As Maren said in her post, half the battle is knowing who your audience is.  The Greeks certainly knew to whom they had to cater.  Sacrifices, praises, and favors were all given to satisfy the gods’ hubris, or pride.  The Greek gods were potent, but not perfect, and their faults (usually involving a lack of humility) allowed their allegiances to be shifted to those who knew how to persuade them.  Too many times we think of persuasion as a grassroots movement.  We, like Ulysses, persuade the populace around us.  But persuasion is just as much about convincing the upper echelons of society as it is the masses.  We ask for more time for homework from our teachers or for a raise from our bosses.  In our society, this type of persuasion has the stigma of sucking-up or brown-nosing.  But we should learn a lesson from the Greeks.  Next time, we just may receive heaven’s help.      

On the Shoulders of Giants

Though imagined and constructed thousands of years ago, Greek architecture still largely influences us today.  From the time that pen was put to paper (or chisel to stone, as would be more apt in this case), the Greek’s building style was meant to both impress and inspire.  It differed from that of the later Baroque style which was focused on intimidating those who dared disapprove because the fluted columns and stately demeanor of the Greek’s buildings welcomed those who entered to a level of higher thinking.  When I think of words to describe what famous ancient architects, like Hippodamus or Ictinus, were trying to convey, I think of justice, order, and enlightenment.  Is it such a wonder then that many national buildings or important religious monuments were built with Greek undertones?  (If you want to explore more in detail, click here).  This summer, I toured around some more historic parts of the United States.  Here are a few of my adventures:       

               




Even a place as common as the St. Louis Cardinals baseball stadium has subtle traces of the Greeks.






                                                                                                           
                                                                                                              Me at the Nauvoo LDS Temple