John Locke

Being a double major in psychology, John Locke seemed like someone fun to examine. Through my work in psychology, I have heard about Locke many times. Essentially, he believes that everything someone knows is down through themselves, we only know our own ideas, experiences, relationships, and etc. This is why he is often called the "Father of Liberalism" in psychology. Liberalism is essentially the idea that we have individual liberty and equal rights.

Connecting this psychological approach to rhetoric is pretty easy. Since everything is somewhat individualized, this shapes rhetoric. Everybody has their own approach to an issue, their own experience. It is impossible to experience the same thing through someone else's shoes. In rhetoric, we must strive to find a common ground with these people, find something to connect with. This common ground isn't always easy to find, but we (as rhetoricians) must try.

An example of common ground can be found in death penalty arguments. A lot of people think that the death penalty is either wrong or right, no in between. Although the action of putting someone to death is black and white, people often do not realize what both sides really want: justice. Both advocates and proponents of the death penalty want criminals to get punished and justice to be served. Therefore, they must work together to get the appropriate justice. Maybe, this means that they need to make the death penalty a fair process that guarantees that no innocent "criminals" are put to death. There is common ground in every argument.

Another thing that caught my eye was how Locke felt about language and translation. Since everybody experiences things differently, this can be generalized to a bigger group. For example, one culture may have a word for something when another culture does not have any words for the same thing. Translation doesn't cross cultures and languages evenly. I've talked about this on previous blog posts and even my second paper. The validity of the words becomes questionable when the language is changed. It is always something to keep in my wind when talking about how logical an argument is. If the argument can't even be fully understood, then how can it be completely logical?