It is difficult to trust politicians, especially wealthy ones who have very deep pockets. This is why I liked the following clip because it shows a clear contrast between both the physical and emotional energy and clearly represents polar opposites. We have a billionaire giving a speech on economic issues juxtaposed with "low-income and immigrant city residents" (The New York Times) The beginning of the clip shows Mayor Bloomberg droning on about affordable housing; what he is saying itself politically sounds good - affordable housing is a good thing- but amid the clatter of cutlery against plates mixed with barely any inflection in his voice and one crack at a joke, the protesters have an unrivaled energy. If Longinus states that what makes a piece sublime partly is given by a "stimulus of powerful and inspired emotions" (Longinus 121) and another part is the visualization where the viewer actually is "sharing (the boy's) danger and joining the horses in their flight" (Longinus 134), then the protesters have the upper hand. True, Longinus speaks of actual words on paper, and neither Bloomberg nor the protesters say much, but as the video shows the attention and vitality is markedly different. I deeply feel empathy for the protesters, they seem to have a much greater urgency and they certainly revitalize the audience.
So, I come to another point and that is, how do these people get elected? I think mainly it has to be money. Thus, the last chapter titled "The Decay of Eloquence" speaks directly to the effect of money on the soul. He states that the wealthy "breed in our hearts implacable masters, insolence, and lawlessness and shamelessness" (Longinus 165). It seems that Bloomberg reflects this "decay of eloquence" for what does he have to show for future generations besides great wealth and tangible things? And then what happens when he, as Longinus puts it "neglects to develop the immortal" (Longinus 165), and if nothing that can stand the test of time, like eloquent and sublime phrases, is put forth by Bloomberg, what happens when property ceases to contain importance? I guess that is for him to worry about and not I.
Works Cited
Azinyc. "Bloomberg and His Protesters." YouTube. 3 Feb. 2009. 4 Feb. 2009 . Murray, Penelope, and Penelope Murray. Classical Literary Criticism. Trans. Penelope Murray. New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.
Santos, Fernanda. "Boisterous Protest Interrupts Bloomberg." Boisterous Protest Interrupts Bloomberg 3 Feb. 2009. The New York Times. 4 Feb. 2009 .
I chose to be part of the Classical Literary Theory group, albeit with hesitation. Although having had some experience with being part of a first group presentation last semester, Rafael specifically asked me to join for the lack of members was prevalent, and thus, I agreed. Initially, I attempted to set up group discussion on Webct, however, I being the only one knowing about the files under the group section, was unable to incite discussion in that space. It was then in class that Rafael and I talked, attempting to bounce some idea's off one another. We discussed a bit more, but lacking our third group member, nothing could be solidified. We finally met up briefly after class with David; I threw out the idea of focusing on Plato's theory of Forms by having class members draw the couch concept. I thought it might add flare to purchase markers of various colors and let people's personalities and poetry speak on paper, then discuss the differences, similarities, and the bases of what makes the simplest form of a couch, a couch. David liked where I was going, but wanted to have an official meeting. We all decided to meet on Friday and spent three hours hashing out our plan. David suggested the mock trial and both Rafael and I thought it was apropos under the scope of the Greek Philosopher/Sophist dichotomy. The drawing exercise was still included and the Forms could be touched upon as well. We all contributed to the individual components of the entire presentation. I planted the drawing seed and helped to shape the various components of the presentation. I picked out the South Park clip for a bit of dark humor and wrote up the piece of expert opinion. Looking back, I am certainly not a lawyer and failed in presenting my Philoshophical side. I just could not compete with David's excellent and absurd logic! It was here that the division between the two of us was not clear enough and hope it did not cause too much confusion. Overall, I enjoyed presenting a discussion that could break some bit of form and hope some are enjoying chocolate today!
