I’m going to try and respond to both Steve and Hannah’s comments by throwing in some of my own philosophy. Comments directed more toward the texts are in my reading response from Thursday. (I hate repeating myself.) This rant/post might sound somewhat distant from what we are talking about, but I will bring it home by the end of this post. So, here we go…

The “perfect” world would exist in a state of anarchy. There would be no leaders and no followers. Everyone would fulfill a role for the betterment of the whole (and consequently the self) without the need of government or religion or whatever (sounds like a Beatles song). However, I feel that people are innately "evil" (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say hedonistic). Self-gratification is part of our nature. If we were born with a blank slate, the world would be full of Buddhists in a constant state of nirvana and we would probably die out from starvation or lack of breading (think about animals, they don’t bread to perpetuate the species, they bread because it feels good. In a way, genital stimulation is Nature’s little pseudo-rhetorical device used to convince animals to bread by appealing to their hedonistic impulses.) If everyone was born with a blank slate or were innately good, where would "evil "come from? The only answer I can think of is the desire for pleasure or at least the avoidance of displeasure.

With that being said, there is a need for rhetoric. Ramage says there are two reasons for rhetoric: to persuade, and to interpret. With the Greeks, the audience was the key to everything, but it was never discussed in much detail. This is where, I believe, interpretations comes into play. Or as Steve put it, “We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. …we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.” Again, there is rhetoric going on in our heads all the time. Unless there was one universal mind, the ideal anarchist society cannot exist. Everyone has a unique sense of reality formulated in their heads based on that which is perceived "by influence, environment, and reflection." Since our brains are not hooked up to one central mainframe, we need to communicate our ideas as efficiently as possible with others and ourselves.

I’ve been involved in many activist events dealing mostly with politics and animal rights in the local area. I’ve argued for better education, civil liberties, and antidiscrimination on my radio show. In the school newspaper, I’ve warned people about slander in the media and the dangers of organized religion. I’ve tried every rhetorical tactic in my power to get across my ideas. Unless people are tapped into my brain and can see the world exactly as I see it, they aren’t going to grasp my message. Through rhetorical devises, I can give people some insight and hopefully influence them to learn more about my cause, to experience the things that I have experienced on their own. This could be something as simple as reading a specific book. Some people simply don’t know and we can change their lives, but some people just don’t care because they are disparagingly complacent.

I’m not saying that people need to do what I say. In stead, they should think about what I say and engage in a dialogue with me so we can learn from each other. However, the problem goes back to the idea of hedonism. I have fallen into the Mahoney circle of despair on many issues. The average person doesn’t want to feel despair. It is easier to surrender their responsibilities to others. This is why so many KU students tell me “yeah, I don’t really care about politics” when I ask them something political. This is why so many students say, “but meat tastes so good” when I tell them about the environmental degradation, health concerns, and inhumane treatment of animals cause from meat consumption.

Since human weakness makes anarchy impossible, we regrettably need structure, government, and rhetoric. If we didn’t have government, black people would still be lynched, women wouldn’t have a vote, and children would be working in factories. Maybe we need to be politicians to change things (Ugh, I know) and use rhetorical devises to get elected, to convince people to vote for us so they don’t have to think for themselves. I would rather think for people than say an Adam Putnam or a Dennis Hasstert. Outside politics, the least we can do is continuing learning and help educate others.

I’ll try to post more about the readings this upcoming week, but thanks for reading my rant anyway!