Dilbert, Aristotle, and Fear

(PLEASE CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL COMIC STRIP)

According to Aristotle fear is, “a kind of pain or disturbance resulting from the imagination of impending danger, either destructive or painful” (1). The 9/20/2008 Dilbert strip is a perfect example of the Aristotelian definition of the emotion of fear. In the comic the character of Dilbert is looking for some kind of emotional persuasion to compensate for the lack of the energizing boost of coffee. Dilbert comes to his boss and states the premises that, “We’re out of coffee” (2). Then he asks, “Can you give me a false sense of urgency and some unnecessary stress to compensate?” (2). This quote is practically a paraphrase of the Aristotelian definition. Simply replace “false sense of urgency” with “imagination of impending danger” and the same request is being made. The pointy haired boss does not disappoint with his reply and immediately he gives Dilbert something to fear by saying, “Finish your project before our CEO stops by on Tuesday” (2). This fits the criteria of fear in a multitude of ways: (a) It is threat of “hostility and anger from one capable of taking some action,” namely the CEO (1). (b) “Those who are fearsome for one’s superiors; for they would be able to harm us, if they could harm even them” (1). It is interesting to note that the pointy haired boss, being Dilbert’s superior, is not the one to threaten Dilbert but that he actually uses his superior, the CEO, to threaten Dilbert. The reason for this shift in power is that most of the daily comics show that Dilbert and his colleagues do not actually fear the pointy haired boss. Even though he is a superior in rank, he is often viewed as an idiot by his underlings. Thus it is necessary for the pointy haired boss to reach beyond his emotion persuasion to someone who is really capable of causing impending danger. This impending danger is of course the loss of a job, which, as implied in the comic, Dilbert fears the possibility of being fired at any time for not performing to the CEO’s liking.

(1) Aristotle: The Art of Rhetoric.
(2) Scott Adams: Dilbert.

Colbert, O'Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

O'REILLY: It is tough being me. Is it tough being you?
COLBERT: It's hard for me to be you. I'll tell you that much.
O'REILLY: It is? It is? Don't you owe me an enormous amount of money?
COLBERT: Well, if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference. Check your lawyer.

Colbert, O’Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

One of the many things that makes Stephen Colbert so funny and Bill O’Reilly so irritating to many people is their flagrant abuse of language. In a January 18th, 2007, interview on the O’Reilly Factor, the king of conservative talk shows and the court jester of the biased media faced off in a discussion where their stapled use of abused language went head-to-head in a hilarious shootout. One of the best examples of the kind of equivocation that goes on in these exchanges comes right between 2:00-2:27 in the video where O’Reilly asks Colbert if it is tough to be him. Colbert fires back and says that it is tough for him to be O’Reilly and O’Reilly responds by asking if Colbert owes him a lot of money. Then comes the equivocation from Colbert, "if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference" (1). Colbert's premises are that (A) emulation and imitation are not the same thing, (B) imitation warrants legal royalties and (C) emulation does not warrant legal royalties. Therefore, Colbert’s conclusion is that he does not owe O’Reilly royalties due to his emulating rather then imitating. The problem with Colbert’s equivocated argument is that he uses a synonym to change the meaning of the subject matter. He draws a distinction between two words that share the same definition, "an effort or desire to equal" (2). Rather then imitation or emulation, the best word for Colbert would be "mockery," for that is what his argument is truly achieving. However, the intention and purpose of such an equivocated answer is to more make fun of O’Reilly, and other talk show hosts, in the same style in which they themselves argue. Equivocations are bandied about frequently by a verity of talk show host and Colbert is simply capitalizing on the abuse of language by repeating the procedure in a farcical way.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244882,00.html
(2) Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments in Poetry

Deductive and Inductive Arguments in Fictional Literature

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.
- William Blake

At three, I had the feeling of
Ambivalence towards my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But I am happy; now I’ve learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that’s wrong -
Is someone else’s fault.
- Anna Russell

Art is one of the most powerful psychological methods of argument. Through such forms as poetry and literature arguments have made themselves manifest in the most unlikely ways. One such argumentative comes from William’s Blake’s unnamed poem on the eye. In this poem Blake uses deductive reasoning and poetic verse to state the premise that (A) only people who use reason, “through the eye,” can govern themselves with moral conduct, or see an “undistorted heaven.” However, (B) people can use sense “with the eye,” rather then reason. Although, (C) senses confuse the moral will, “dim the soul,” and (D) make an individual more accessible to wrong thinking, “lies.” Therefore, when one uses the senses rather then reason they become more acceptable of immorality.
In contrast Anne Russell uses a farcical inductive argument to move the reader towards the two-sided truth of her conclusion. In the poem she states two premises:
(1) The speaker claims ambivalence towards her brothers
(2) And it follows naturally that she poisoned all her lovers.
Thus it is through the premises that the speaker draws the probable conclusion that all wrongs committed by one are really someone else’s fault. While it seems at first that this kind of argument comes across as rather speculative, in reality the implied argument against psychology is that of a scathing critique. Anne Russell is creatively mocking the Freudian methodology of inductive reasoning by stating it in such a flippant way. However, in doing so she acutely uses the methodology of inductive argument by stating that: If (A) someone wrongs me and (B) I wrong someone else, then (C) It is A’s fault. She is hoping that her premises are so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.