Re: The Literary Logic Of 1 Kings 17 19
Elliott Davis
Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.
Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life and in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he know that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" is one of the most famous quoted speeches in history. In it, King uses rhetoric to appeal to his audience's emotions, values, and logic. By doing so, he is able to make a powerful argument for civil rights. So with that, it is worth exploring the ethos (expertise), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logic) of the speech to break it down into some core elements.
Logos is the use of logic and reason to persuade an audience. King uses logos throughout his speech by providing evidence and reasoning for why civil rights are important. He also uses analogy and metaphor to help illustrate his points. For instance, he compares Blacks to "a nation of sheep" being led astray by a "jackass" (the White establishment). This comparison helps to paint a picture in the minds of his listeners and makes his argument more understandable.
When looking at how Martin Luther King uses rhetoric, we can see that he employs all three of Aristotle's modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. He establishes his credibility as a leader early on in the speech, by talking about his experience with discrimination and sharing his credentials as a Baptist minister. Throughout the speech, he uses emotional language to connect with his audience and paint a picture of the struggles that African Americans face. He also uses logic and reasoning to back up his argument, by citing statistics and historical events.
Start the lesson by explaining ethos, pathos, and logos. These are persuasive techniques used to convince an audience and are crucial in effective communication and writing. Use simple, relatable examples to describe each: ethos as establishing credibility or trust, pathos as appealing to emotions, and logos as using logic or reason. Reference \"I Have a Dream\" to show how Martin Luther King Jr. effectively used these techniques.
Start the lesson by explaining ethos, pathos, and logos. These are persuasive techniques used to convince an audience and are crucial in effective communication and writing. Use simple, relatable examples to describe each: ethos as establishing credibility or trust, pathos as appealing to emotions, and logos as using logic or reason. Reference "I Have a Dream" to show how Martin Luther King Jr. effectively used these techniques.
The Restoration refers to the restoration of the monarchy when Charles II was restored to the throne of England following an eleven-year Commonwealth period during which the country was governed by Parliament under the direction of the Puritan General Oliver Cromwell. This political event coincides with (and to some extent is responsible for) changes in the literary, scientific, and cultural life of Britain.
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (or KKV) is an influential 1994 book written by Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba that lays out guidelines for conducting qualitative research.[1] The central thesis of the book is that qualitative and quantitative research share the same "logic of inference."[2] The book primarily applies lessons from regression-oriented analysis to qualitative research, arguing that the same logics of causal inference can be used in both types of research.[3][1]
In terms of case selection, KKV warn against "selecting on the dependent variable". For example, researchers cannot make valid causal inferences about wars outbreak by only looking at instances where war did happen (the researcher should also look at cases where war did not happen). There is methodological problem in selecting on the explanatory variable, however. They do warn about multicollinearity (choosing two or more explanatory variables that perfectly correlate with each other). They argue that random selection of cases is a valid case selection strategy in large-N research, but warn against it in small-N research.
Numerous scholars disagree with KKV in their claims that qualitative research should integrate standards from quantitative research.[5][6][13] There are different logics to the manner in which qualitative research is conducted and what qualitative scholars seek and can do with their data.[13] Brady and Collier argue that KKV give insufficient attention to these divergent logics, as well as the intrinsic tradeoffs between different methodological goals.[5] Gary Goertz and James Mahoney dispute that the main difference between qualitative and quantitative research is the size of N. Instead, a primary difference is that qualitative scholars tend to do within-case analyses whereas quantitative scholars almost by definition do cross-case analyses.[13]
Mahoney writes that KKV ignore set theory and logic in terms of evaluating causal inference. Whereas regression-oriented analyses seek to estimate average effects of certain outcomes, qualitative research seeks to explain why cases have certain outcomes.[1] Thus, causal inference is not strengthened by expanding the size of N, but rather by carefully choosing cases, whose testing can strengthen or weaken a theory.[1] Mahoney and Gary Goertz make an analogy with a murder case: a single piece of smoking gun evidence can conclusively show whether a person committed a murder.[13]
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law isjustor unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law ofGod. An unjustlaw is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St.Thomas Aquinas:An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any lawthat upliftshuman personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. Allsegregation statutesare unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives thesegregatora false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation,to use theterminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship foran "I thou"relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation isnot onlypolitically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. PaulTillich has saidthat sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragicseparation, his awfulestrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954decision of theSupreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregationordinances, for theyare morally wrong.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemnedbecause they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this likecondemning a robbedman because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this likecondemningSocrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiriesprecipitated theact by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this likecondemningJesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's willprecipitatedthe evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts haveconsistently affirmed,it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutionalrights because thequest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relationtothe struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. Hewrites: "AllChristians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it ispossible that youare in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years toaccomplishwhat it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stemsfrom a tragicmisconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in thevery flow oftime that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be usedeither destructively orconstructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much moreeffectivelythan have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merelyfor the hatefulwords and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.Humanprogress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless effortsof men willing tobe co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of theforces of socialstagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe todo right.Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending nationalelegy intoa creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from thequicksand of racialinjustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
aa06259810