"It is not uncommon to commiserate with a stranger's misfortune, but it takes a really fine nature to appreciate a friend's succes"— Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde’s saying, “It is not uncommon to commiserate with a stranger's misfortune, but it takes a really fine nature to appreciate a friend's success” impresses me because it concisely reveals the truth of sophisticated human nature in a simple but powerful sentence. The power of Wilde’s saying stems from the structure, the tone and the diction.
The literal interpretation for this aphorism is that people tend to be compassionate with the unfortunate person, even if it is stranger, but may not be truly happy with their friends’ success. In this saying, Wilde is trying to convey the truth that human nature is intrinsically imperfect, which can be proved by the fact that jealousy of others is the weakness of most people.
The structure of the sentence involves both opposition and balance. First Wilde concedes that for most people, either good nature of bad nature, show mercy to the unfortunate. Then the latter part of the saying transits into arguing that only people with food nature can truly appreciate friends’ success. The conceding and transition express opposite attitude towards human nature. The conceding part seems to praise the kindness of people but the transition raises the doubt towards that kindness. Can we treat our friends as good as to an unfortunate stranger? The contrasting attitude makes the whole argument balanced because the argument avoids going to any extreme, neither admitting only the positive sides of human nature nor denying all positive sides of human nature, and thus the saying becomes very persuasive by involving the audiences to reflect on themselves when they think about the doubt raised by Wilde after accepting the conceding part at the beginning. Besides the contrasting attitude, the balance of the structure is also reflected in the corresponding words in the conceding and transition parts. For example, the counterpart for the word “commiserate” is “appreciate”; “misfortune” is corresponding with “success”; “stranger” is versus “friends”. The power of the saying also derives from such balanced structure, the symmetry of language, which impresses audiences with the beauty and stability of the sentence.
Unlike some other saying which may directly and sarcastically criticize human nature, Wilde’s saying is relatively mild in both the conceding part and the transition part. In conceding, Wilde prepares for his following argument in transition by arousing the audiences’ interest to keep on reading rather than saying something that is not easy for the audiences to accept at the beginning. For the transition part, rather than saying most people can not appreciate a friend’s success, Wilde adopts a more euphemistic way to express, stating that only people with fine nature can truly appreciate friends’ success. In this way, although raising doubts towards human nature, Wilde also leaves some hope for people because he does not utterly deny that people can appreciate friends. It is a mild tone, but it is more powerful than a harsh tone. Harsh tone will expel the audiences without enabling them to think about the argument carefully, while a mild tone can keep the audience and let them move on while thinking about the deep meaning of the argument. It is natural that people are more inclined to accept an argument that has been examined by themselves than to accept a direct and harsh argument. It is also the power of a mild argument.
The idea of Wilde’s saying is not new, but the diction makes the saying much persuasive and impressive than a cliché. Some words used by Wilde, uncommon, commiserate, appreciate, are high diction level words and some other words, like stranger, friend, fine nature are conversational level words. High level words give a sense of authority while the conversational level words are easy to understand. The combination of diction level, together with the balanced structure, makes the saying very convincing and objective because the sentence would be neither too serious nor too causal with different diction levels.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Chris Upton Blog 1 Post: "Greed Is Good"
“Greed is good.” – Gordon Gecko, Wall Street
In a captivating scene, the antagonist of the film Wall Street explains his motto and justifies his actions in accruing mass sums of wealth at the expense whoever stands in his way. Gecko states, “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed,
in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation call the USA.”” Since the release of the film, Gecko’s famous “Greed is good” speech” has inspired entrepreneurs and Wall Street traders, become a mantra for free market ideologues, and infuriated various religious groups and altruistic organizations. Why does Gecko’s speech from the film written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone become so renowned in our society and register such an emotional response with the viewer? Where did the ideas of the speech come from and what effect does this origin have in resonating with the audience of the film?
Gecko’s statement argues that personal greed drives all progress and advancement in society. The statement’s basic alliteration and colloquial simplicity make it a catchy slogan for those who believe in its worth. The simplicity of the statement not only seems easy to understand but also justifies a particular outlook and way of life.
While the words seem incredibly fresh when delivered by Gecko in the film, the mantra has been argued throughout the 20th century by various economic philosophers. Perhaps the speech resonates profoundly in society because it has become one of the classic debates of the 20th century: Is greed really good for society? By centering on this particular question, Stone’s film examines the merits to which such a philosophy holds. The film utilized Gecko’s speech as a tool to characterize the economic policies and beliefs of the Reagan era. The economics of the Reagan era issued in unprecedented deregulation of markets and reduction of government intervention in the private sector and citizen’s lives. Reagan believed the profits and gains acquired by those at the top in such a system would trickle down throughout all classes and improve society as a whole. Ever since the days of Reagan, conservatives have further embraced the “Greed is good” mantra.
Although Stone’s film popularized the slogan and the Reagan administration implemented the idea in governance like never before, the ideas within the simple phrase “Greed is good” have been ingrained within society for a long time. Since the 18th century when economist Adam Smith outlined his theory of “The Invisible Hand” in writing The Wealth of Nations, the idea that individual self interest benefits all of society has been a major influence in American philosophy and economics. Widely considered “The Father of Capitalism,” Smith has profoundly influenced society and economic thought. Many disciples of the Smith view Gecko’s speech as just rewording and simplifying Smith’s “Invisible Hand” for the modern era.
During the time between Smith and Reagan, many writers and economic thinkers echoed the “Greed is good” mentality throughout the 20th century. In writings and major novels throughout her career, famous author Ayn Rand reissued Smith’s call for individual self interest above all else. Rand wrote, “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself.” Rand outlined her approach in a philosophy called Objectivism. In mentoring thinkers like Alan Greenspan, Rand’s economic outlook elevating self-interest permeates the framework of many corporations and the hearts of many citizens within the United States today.
While Stone’s “Greed is good” speech captures the moral dilemma at the heart of the film Wall Street, it also expresses the controversial economic and personal philosophy more simply than ever before. Furthermore, the film exposes on the grand stage of cinema the extent to which the mantra has become entrenched within society. The outrage and praise of Gecko’s words continues today as companies never stop trying to find new ways to grow and citizens express outrage over the bonuses of executives. The “Greed is good” mantra will now always represent a portion of the beliefs of our democratic capitalist society and in return evoke feelings of outrage by those who disagree with it and its role in our American system.
In a captivating scene, the antagonist of the film Wall Street explains his motto and justifies his actions in accruing mass sums of wealth at the expense whoever stands in his way. Gecko states, “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed,
in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation call the USA.”” Since the release of the film, Gecko’s famous “Greed is good” speech” has inspired entrepreneurs and Wall Street traders, become a mantra for free market ideologues, and infuriated various religious groups and altruistic organizations. Why does Gecko’s speech from the film written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone become so renowned in our society and register such an emotional response with the viewer? Where did the ideas of the speech come from and what effect does this origin have in resonating with the audience of the film?
Gecko’s statement argues that personal greed drives all progress and advancement in society. The statement’s basic alliteration and colloquial simplicity make it a catchy slogan for those who believe in its worth. The simplicity of the statement not only seems easy to understand but also justifies a particular outlook and way of life.
While the words seem incredibly fresh when delivered by Gecko in the film, the mantra has been argued throughout the 20th century by various economic philosophers. Perhaps the speech resonates profoundly in society because it has become one of the classic debates of the 20th century: Is greed really good for society? By centering on this particular question, Stone’s film examines the merits to which such a philosophy holds. The film utilized Gecko’s speech as a tool to characterize the economic policies and beliefs of the Reagan era. The economics of the Reagan era issued in unprecedented deregulation of markets and reduction of government intervention in the private sector and citizen’s lives. Reagan believed the profits and gains acquired by those at the top in such a system would trickle down throughout all classes and improve society as a whole. Ever since the days of Reagan, conservatives have further embraced the “Greed is good” mantra.
Although Stone’s film popularized the slogan and the Reagan administration implemented the idea in governance like never before, the ideas within the simple phrase “Greed is good” have been ingrained within society for a long time. Since the 18th century when economist Adam Smith outlined his theory of “The Invisible Hand” in writing The Wealth of Nations, the idea that individual self interest benefits all of society has been a major influence in American philosophy and economics. Widely considered “The Father of Capitalism,” Smith has profoundly influenced society and economic thought. Many disciples of the Smith view Gecko’s speech as just rewording and simplifying Smith’s “Invisible Hand” for the modern era.
During the time between Smith and Reagan, many writers and economic thinkers echoed the “Greed is good” mentality throughout the 20th century. In writings and major novels throughout her career, famous author Ayn Rand reissued Smith’s call for individual self interest above all else. Rand wrote, “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself.” Rand outlined her approach in a philosophy called Objectivism. In mentoring thinkers like Alan Greenspan, Rand’s economic outlook elevating self-interest permeates the framework of many corporations and the hearts of many citizens within the United States today.
While Stone’s “Greed is good” speech captures the moral dilemma at the heart of the film Wall Street, it also expresses the controversial economic and personal philosophy more simply than ever before. Furthermore, the film exposes on the grand stage of cinema the extent to which the mantra has become entrenched within society. The outrage and praise of Gecko’s words continues today as companies never stop trying to find new ways to grow and citizens express outrage over the bonuses of executives. The “Greed is good” mantra will now always represent a portion of the beliefs of our democratic capitalist society and in return evoke feelings of outrage by those who disagree with it and its role in our American system.
“Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after the other.”
–Walter Elliot
For me, this quote means that you need to persevere, persist, or maintain a purpose through all of the seemingly small things in life, and if you can do that, the larger goals will fall into place. For example, a student needs to persevere through their tough work load, one assignment at a time. If they maintain their purpose throughout each “short race” then their larger goals which may be to get an A in the class or to graduate will follow. One thing that I really like about this metaphor is that it allows for each individual to apply it to their own situation and their own goals. Even though two people may have the same long term goal, everyone will have different “short races” or seemingly small things to persevere through on their way toward reaching that goal.
The ‘logos’ or logic and reason of a piece of writing includes structure, form, and order. These three elements contribute to the meaning that is conveyed in this metaphor. For example, if you just look at the surface structure of this metaphor, it can seem to contradict itself. After all, isn’t many short races one after the other really just a long race? The audience is forced to take a deeper look in order to understand the meaning that is trying to be conveyed. They must figure out how the two can be separated and consequently differ in order to make sense of what perseverance is and is not.
–Walter Elliot
For me, this quote means that you need to persevere, persist, or maintain a purpose through all of the seemingly small things in life, and if you can do that, the larger goals will fall into place. For example, a student needs to persevere through their tough work load, one assignment at a time. If they maintain their purpose throughout each “short race” then their larger goals which may be to get an A in the class or to graduate will follow. One thing that I really like about this metaphor is that it allows for each individual to apply it to their own situation and their own goals. Even though two people may have the same long term goal, everyone will have different “short races” or seemingly small things to persevere through on their way toward reaching that goal.
The ‘logos’ or logic and reason of a piece of writing includes structure, form, and order. These three elements contribute to the meaning that is conveyed in this metaphor. For example, if you just look at the surface structure of this metaphor, it can seem to contradict itself. After all, isn’t many short races one after the other really just a long race? The audience is forced to take a deeper look in order to understand the meaning that is trying to be conveyed. They must figure out how the two can be separated and consequently differ in order to make sense of what perseverance is and is not.
This metaphor is also a compound sentence; it combines two independent clauses by the use of the semicolon. This is important in order to get the correct meaning across to the audience. By using a semicolon instead of a comma and conjunction, the two statements seem more declarative and are more direct. By simply stating what perseverance is and what it is not without any unnecessary words, the metaphor becomes more effective. There is balance that is created on both sides of the semicolon. This balance makes the metaphor take on more of an artful form. The choice of words also contributes to the balance that is created. The word ‘race’ is repeated on both sides of the metaphor. There is also a sense of simplicity that is created on both sides. Elliot simply states what perseverance is and what it is not, by repeating the words ‘is’.
The order of the words in the metaphor is also very significant. This metaphor starts out by saying what perseverance is not. I think this draws the reader in and makes them want to find out what perseverance is. Also, by first saying what perseverance is not helps to narrow down the meaning of what it actually is. If the metaphor was reversed to be, “Perseverance is many short races one after the other; it is not a long race”, there wouldn’t be the same effect. There seems to be no point, as a reader, to continue reading if you already know what perseverance is. Also, the balance is slightly disturbed. In terms of length, the first part of the metaphor before the semicolon is much longer than the part that follows. The artful form is lost in the reversal.
Finally, I don’t believe that this metaphor is clichéd. I have only heard one person use this metaphor. Because it is not clichéd, many people may have not encountered this quote before and it may be a new idea to them. For instance, one may have never thought of perseverance as many short races one after the other. It may even go against what they have originally thought about perseverance or it may provide them with a new way of looking at the term. If one accepts this metaphor, then he or she may apply it to their own life and circumstances. I believe that this metaphor can really help someone maintain their purpose in order to reach their goal. First however, they must persist through the small, individual tasks on the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)