Starfish Link:
https://elcamino.starfishsolutions.com/starfish-ops/
Unit on The Meaning of Ambition
Essay Two for 150 Points (Life of Image Vs. Life of Substance)
Option One: To an audience of college students, write a persuasive essay that addresses the contention that "Bartleby, the Scrivener, "Winter Dreams" or "The Other Woman" illustrates the moral principles in David Brooks' online essay "The Moral Bucket List" or Kristen Dombek's online essay "Emptiness."
"Bartleby, the Scrivener":
A crazed narrator who lives in hellish isolation writes about a man, Bartleby, a lowly office worker, who disobeys the narrator in a copy office. As we read the story, we begin to realize that the narrator has no life, no love, no human connections. He only lives for an image of success. But his ambition has brought him nothing. He is so empty and so needy that he writes this story in order to vindicate himself for the hellish life he has chosen. As we read the story, we begin to wonder if Bartleby even exists at all but is merely a phantom, a projection or alter ego of the insane narrator. With no connection to the core in his self and no connection to others, the narrator is in many ways a narcissist.
"Winter Dreams":
Dexter Green is obsessed with the life of image: of American success, trophies, status, oneupmanship. He projects his fantasies on Judy Jones, who becomes his chimera of the American Dream. But living for Judy Jones, a fantasy, a "Winter Dream," if you will, he never lives in the real world and in fact squanders his whole life on a tawdry illusion. Like the narrator in "Bartleby," Dexter Green is a narcissist, an empty soul whose only conviction is to rely on the adulation and approval of others.
"The Other Woman":
The narrator of this story is about to marry a judge's daughter, not for love but for elevated status, and just before marrying his fiance he has an affair, which he rationalizes with the astute potency of a full-fledged narcissist. All 3 characters from the stories are narcissists and victims of unbridled ambition. They have no moral core to counterbalance their vanity and desire for image. All 3 characters live for an imaginary life, not a real life. They are like the people Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, described hundreds of years ago:
We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labour unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. And if we possess calmness, or generosity, or truthfulness, we are eager to make it known, so as to attach these virtues to that imaginary existence. We would rather separate them from ourselves to join them to it; and we would willingly be cowards in order to acquire the reputation of being brave. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce the one for the other! For he would be infamous who would not die to preserve his honour.
To paraphrase the above:
We are so vain and narcissistic that too often we put more effort in creating an image than working on the substance of our soul. We don't care or know that we are lost and miserable as long as we have led others to believe that we are happy and good. When we feel incomplete as human beings, we buy a new car so that in enjoying the admiration of others we try to convince ourselves that we are now "complete" and happy. We date and even marry people we don't love because we think that others will admire us, the "power couple" who enjoy "Chanel No. 5 Moments" everywhere we go, where we are the center of attention. As we live for the Chanel No. 5 Moment, we become more and more empty inside, miserable zombies unaware of our decrepit and fraudulent condition.
All 3 characters fit the above description.
Suggested Structure
Paragraph 1: Summarize Brooks' or Dombek's essay. 150 words.
Paragraph 2. Frame the debate of your argumentative thesis by asking how and why the story addresses the major ideas in Brooks' or Dombek's essay. Then answer your question with a thesis. 150 words.
Paragraphs 3-6: Supporting paragraphs: They support your thesis' mapping components. 125 words each for 500
Paragraph 7: Write your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph. 150 words.
Paragraph 8: Conclusion: Restate your thesis with emotion (pathos) and show its broader ramifications. 100 words (total is 1,050 words).
If you wish, you can analyze these fallen characters through the following essays as well:
"Emptiness" by Kristen Dombek
"Love People, Not Pleasure," by Arthur C. Brooks
"Ambition Explosion" by David Brooks
McMahon's Change of Attitude Toward David Brooks' Essay
Since making this assignment a few months ago, I've come to see, through the works of MIT professor Cal Newport, that Brooks' proposed dichotomy between the resume and eulogy virtues (career on one hand and moral virtue on the other) is somewhat of an either/or fallacy.
Through reading Cal Newport's books So Good They Can't Ignore You and Deep Work, I've come to see there is an approach to work that builds character and integrity, that in fact integrates Brooks' notions of ambition success and character success. It is called the craftsman approach. Instead of trying to find a "cush" job or the mistake of "following your bliss," you find a craft that forces you into discomfort and long-attention span, what Newport calls "deep work." You only find your passion AFTER developing a mastery and competence in your field. We will talk about it during a subsequent lecture.
You might also consult Pascal's famous Pensees:
We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavour to shine. We labour unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. And if we possess calmness, or generosity, or truthfulness, we are eager to make it known, so as to attach these virtues to that imaginary existence. We would rather separate them from ourselves to join them to it; and we would willingly be cowards in order to acquire the reputation of being brave. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce the one for the other! For he would be infamous who would not die to preserve his honour.
Option 2:
Develop a thesis that analyzes "Bartleby, the Scrivener, "Winter Dreams" or "The Other Woman" in terms of the Faustian Bargain described in the essay "Love People, Not Pleasure," by Arthur C. Brooks. Be sure your essay at least 3 sources. You could use a structure similar to one in Option 1. You can also use the documentary Minimalism (2016) as a source for Option #2.
Bear in mind, Option #2 is really the same as Option #1. It's just different wording. In both cases, the exchange of substance for a life of image is the Faustian Bargain.
Sources for Option 1 and 2:
You don't need any resources other than the ones I've provided, but you can use any other sources you see fit as long as you have 3 sources in your Works Cited page.
The Secret to understanding "Bartleby":
Every thing the narrator says or suggests about himself is a conscious or unconscious lie so that the opposite is usually true:
"elderly man" suggests a wise authority but the narrator is neither wise or authoritative.
"profound conviction" suggests a man with convictions but in fact the narrator is tormented by doubt and ambiguity.
"view of the brick wall": There is no view. The brick wall is his prison of routine and solipsism.
Slate's Annotated "Bartleby, the Scrivener"
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is every day foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
“Choose Experiences Over Stuff" by Carl Richards
"Ambition Explosion" by David Brooks
"Why Millennials Value Experiences Over Owning Things" by Blake Morgan
Critical Writing
Applying your critical thinking to academic writing
You will find that your task as a writer at the higher levels of critical thinking is to argue.
You will express your argument in 6 ways:
One. You will define a situation that calls for some response in writing by asking critical questions. For example, is the Confederate flag a symbol of honor and respect for the heritage of white people in the South? Or is the flag a symbol of racial hatred, slavery, and Jim Crow?
Two. You will demonstrate the timeliness of your argument. In other words, why is your argument relevant?
Why is it relevant for example to address the decision of many parents to NOT vaccinate their children?
Three. Establish your personal investment in the topic. Why do you care about the topic you’re writing about?
You may be alarmed to see exponential increases in college costs and this is personal because you have children who will presumably go to college someday.
Four. Appeal to your readers by anticipating their thoughts, beliefs, and values, especially as they pertain to the topic you are writing about. You may be arguing a vegetarian diet to people who are predisposed to believing that vegetarian eating is a hideous exercise in self-denial and amounts to torture.
You may have to allay their doubts by making them delicious vegetarian foods or by convincing them that they can make such meals.
You may be arguing against the NFL to those who defend it on the basis of the relatively high salaries NFL players make. Do you have an answer to that?
Five. Support your argument with solid reasons and compelling evidence. If you're going to make the claim that the NFL is morally repugnant, can you support that? How?
Six. Anticipate your readers’ reasons for disagreeing with your position and try to change their mind so they “see things your way.” We call this “making the readers drink your Kool-Aid.”
Being a Critical Reader Means Being an Active Reader
To be an active reader we must ask the following when we read a text:
One. What is the author’s thesis or purpose?
Two. What arguments is the author responding to?
Three. Is the issue relevant or significant? If not, why?
Four. How do I know that what the author says is true or credible? If not, why?
Five. Is the author’s evidence legitimate? Sufficient? Why or why not?
Six. Do I have legitimate opposition to the author’s argument?
Seven. What are some counterarguments to the author’s position?
Eight. Has the author addressed the most compelling counterarguments?
Nine. Is the author searching for truth or is the author beholden to an agenda, political, business, lobby, or something else?
Ten. Is the author’s position compromised by the use of logical fallacies such as either/or, Straw Man, ad hominem, non sequitur, confusing causality with correlation, etc.?
Eleven. Has the author used effective rhetorical strategies to be persuasive? Rhetorical strategies in the most general sense include ethos (credibility), logos (clear logic), and pathos (appealing to emotion). Another rhetorical strategy is the use of biting satire when one wants to mercilessly attack a target.
Twelve. You should write in the margins of your text (annotate) to address the above questions. Using annotations increases your memory and reading comprehension far beyond passive reading. And research shows annotating while reading is far superior to using a highlighter, which is mostly a useless exercise.
An annotation can be very brief. Here are some I use:
?
Wrong
Confusing
Thesis
Proof 1
Counterargument
Good point
Genius
Lame
BS
Cliché
Condescending
Full of himself
Contradiction!
Evaluate Sources to Determine Their Credibility
Two. How do we generate ideas for an essay?
Brainstorm
We begin by not worrying about being critical. We brainstorm a huge list of ideas and then when the list is complete, we undergo the process of evaluation.
Sample Topic for an Essay: Parents Who Don’t Immunize Their Children
- Most parents who don’t immunize their children are educated and upper class.
- They read on the Internet that immunizations lead to autism or other health problems.
- They follow some “natural guru” who warns that vaccines aren’t organic and pose health risks.
- They panic over anecdotal evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous.
- They confuse correlation with causality.
- Why are these parents always rich?
- Are they narcissists?
- Are they looking for simple answers for complex problems?
- Would they not stand in line for the Ebola vaccine, if it existed?
- These parents are endangering others by not getting the vaccine.
Thesis that is a claim of cause and effect:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children tend to be narcissistic people of privilege who believe their sources of information are superior to “the mainstream media”; who are looking for simple explanations that might protect their children from autism; who are confusing correlation with causality; and who are benefiting from the very vaccinations they refuse to give their children.
Thesis that is a claim of argumentation:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be prosecuted by the law because they are endangering the public and they are relying on pseudo-intellectual science to base their decisions.
To test a thesis, we must always ask: “What might be objections to my claim?”
Prosecuting parents will only give those parents more reason to be paranoid that the government is conspiring against them.
There are less severe ways to get parents to comply with the need to vaccinate their children.
Generating Ideas for Our Essays
How do we prepare our minds so we have “Eureka” (I found it) moments and apply these moments to our writing?
The word eureka comes from the Greek heuristic, a method or process for discovering ideas. The principle posits that one thought triggers another.
Diverse and conflicting opinions in a classroom are a heuristic tool for generating thoughts.
Here’s an example:
One student says, “Fat people should pay a fat tax because they incur more medical costs than non-fat people.”
Another student says, “Wrong. Fat people die at a far younger age. It’s people who live past seventy, non-fat people, who put a bigger drain on medical costs. In fact, smokers and fat people, by dying young, save us money.”
Another heuristic method is breaking down the subject into classical topics:
Definition: What is it? Jealousy is a form of insanity in which a morally bankrupt person assumes his partner is as morally bankrupt as he is.
Comparison: What is it like or unlike? Compared to the risk of us dying from global warming, death from a terrorist attack is relatively miniscule.
Relationship: What caused it, and what will it cause? The chief cause of our shrinking brain and its concomitant reduced attention span is gadget screen time.
Testimony: What is said about it by experts? Social scientists explain that the United States’ mass incarceration of poor people actually increases the crime rate.
Another heuristic method is finding a controversial topic and writing a list of pros and cons.
Consider the topic, “Should I become a vegan?”
Here are some pros:
- I’ll focus on eating healthier foods.
- I won’t be eating as many foods potentially contaminated by E.coli and Salmonella.
- I won’t be contributing as much to the suffering of sentient creatures.
- I won’t be contributing as much to greenhouse gasses.
- I’ll be eating less cholesterol and saturated fats.
Cons
- It’s debatable that a vegan diet is healthier than a Paleo (heavy meat eating) diet.
- Relying on soy is bad for the body.
- My body craves animal protein.
- Being a vegan will ostracize me from my family and friends.
One. Checklist for Critical Thinking
My attitude toward critical thinking:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity? Or do I exist in a circular, self-feeding, insular brain loop resulting in solipsism? The latter is also called living in the echo chamber.
Am I willing to honestly examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas—both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to approach a debatable topic by using dialectical argument, going back and forth between opposing views?
Am I willing to exert myself—for instance, to do research—to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
My skills to develop critical thinking
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively—for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
