Against False Advertising
Many cars claim that they are environmentally friendly, that they are using the least possible amount of resources. But none of these cars made as many specific claims as the Toyota Prius.
So how does the Prius really compare to the rest of the environmentally harmful cars? Well, the Prius has two engines under it’s hood. There is a 1.5L gas engine as well as an electric motor. This electric motor is used to propel the car to 25mph and then the gas engine will kick in and continue to excel the car forward. But when the car is idling, or sitting in traffic, the electric engine is useful and saves gas. This battery gets recharged through the brake system.
Hybrid cars require more high tech batteries than regular cars. The Prius uses a nickel battery, which as it turns out, is not environmentally friendly. Nickel for the battery is produced at a plant in Ontario, where Toyota buys about 1,000 tons a year. There is no life for miles around this plant, affecting both the ground and the air, causing acid rain. Even NASA uses this location for moon landscape practices because of the barren land. However, these batteries are not finished here in Ontario. They travel to a refinery in Wales, then to China where the nickel is manufactured into foam, and are the finally finished in Toyota’s battery plant in Japan. So, because the batteries are not finished at one plant, they use much more energy to be sent from country to country to complete production, ultimately causing the Prius to fail in environmental effectiveness. Just for the battery alone, there is ten thousand miles of traveling by both container ship and diesel train.
These hybrid cars are only expected to last 100,000 miles in each lifetime. While other cars are expected to last two or three times as long. Because of this, the Prius is much more expensive for consumers and manufacturers. These cars do not pay for themselves after a certain number of years like they are said to be. And because of all the energy used to produce and dispose of this car, there actually are more environmental benefits in buying an SUV.
Disposing of the batteries is another issue entirely. As of right now, these cars are relatively new, so there is no need to dispose of the batteries just yet. But what is going to happen in the next few decades? Once these cars reach the end of their lifetime, it is going to take a lot more energy to dispose of the car and the battery because of the specialties involved in it. So, is buying this car really worth it? Would you want to spend extra money and be hurting the environment more?
The public perceives the Prius to be something very environmentally friendly, pollution free, and money saving. When in reality the premium for the Prius lasts five years. It would take this long before the gas savings would really make a difference.
Aside from energy issues, the Prius has been known for misleading marketing and advertising as well. When the Prius first came onto the market, Toyota claimed that the car would get up to 50 mpg on the highway and up to 60mpg in the city. Of course, everyone who heard, and believed this claim ran to the dealers to buy one of these cars. Putting themselves on yearlong waiting lists and paying thousands of dollars to ‘save money’ with this car’s amazing gas mileage. But very soon consumers found out that this was a false claim. Because of out of date government testing procedures, in reality, the Prius only got about 45 miles to the gallon. Which is not much more than other popular compact economy cars on the market.
Pricing cars based on manufacturing, use, life, and disposal shows that the Prius costs over $3 a mile over it’s entire life. That is extremely high considering a Hummer costs less than $2 a mile and many compact economy cars are less than $1. Toyota claims that the Prius is environmentally friendly. It claims that this car will save money in the long run and save the planet in the process. This is a long shot. There are very few instances where this car will begin to pay for itself. Claiming to be something you’re not, only causes more criticism and makes consumers question products even more.
However, this is my opinion, I have found these statistics and choose to believe that this is the case. If, upon your own research, you have a different finding, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Against the Sophists
Isocrates
If all who are engaged in the profession of education were willing to state the facts instead of making greater promises than they can possibly fulfill, they would not be in such bad repute with the lay-public. As it is, however, the teachers who do not scruple to vaunt their powers with utter disregard of the truth have created the impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study.
Indeed, who can fail to abhor, yes to contemn, those teachers, in the first place, who devote themselves to disputation since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies? For I think it is manifest to all that foreknowledge of future events is not vouchsafed to our human nature, but that we are so far removed from this prescience that Homer, who has been conceded the highest reputation for wisdom, has pictured even the gods as at times debating among themselves about the future--not that he knew their minds but that he desired to show us that for mankind this power lies in the realms of the impossible.
But these professors have gone so far in their lack of scruple that they attempt to persuade our young men that if they will only study under them they will know what to do in life and through this knowledge will become happy and prosperous. More than that, although they set themselves up as masters and dispensers of goods so precious, they are not ashamed of asking for them a price of three or four minae! Why, if they were to sell any other commodity for so trifling a fraction of its worth they would not deny their folly; nevertheless, although they set so insignificant a price on the whole stock of virtue and happiness, they pretend to wisdom and assume the right to instruct the rest of the world. Furthermore, although they say that they do not want money and speak contemptuously of wealth as filthy lucre, they hold their hands out for a trifling gain and promise to make their disciples all but immortal! But what is most ridiculous of all is that they distrust those from whom they are to get this money--they distrust, that is to say, the very men to whom they are about to deliver the science of just dealing--and they require that the fees advanced by their students be entrusted for safe keeping to those who have never been under their instruction, being well advised as to their security, but doing the opposite of what they preach. For it is permissible to those who give any other instruction to be exacting in matters open to dispute, since nothing prevents those who have been made adept in other lines of training from being dishonorable in the matter of contracts. But men who inculcate virtue and sobriety--is it not absurd if they do not trust in their own students before all others? For it is not to be supposed that men who are honorable and just-dealing with others will be dishonest with the very preceptors who have made them what they are.
When, therefore, the layman puts all these things together and observes that the teachers of wisdom and dispensers of happiness are themselves in great want but exact only a small fee from their students, that they are on the watch for contradictions in words but are blind to inconsistencies in deeds, and that, furthermore, they pretend to have knowledge of the future but are incapable either of saying anything pertinent or of giving any counsel regarding the present, and when he observes that those who follow their judgements are more consistent and more successful4 than those who profess to have exact knowledge, then he has, I think, good reason to contemn such studies and regard them as stuff and nonsense, and not as a true discipline of the soul.
But it is not these sophists alone who are open to criticism, but also those who profess to teach political discourse. For the latter have no interest whatever in the truth, but consider that they are masters of an art if they can attract great numbers of students by the smallness of their charges and the magnitude of their professions and get something out of them. For they are themselves so stupid and conceive others to be so dull that, although the speeches which they compose are worse than those which some laymen improvise, nevertheless they promise to make their students such clever orators that they will not overlook any of the possibilities which a subject affords. More than that, they do not attribute any of this power either to the practical experience or to the native ability of the student, but undertake to transmit the science of discourse as simply as they would teach the letters of the alphabet, not having taken trouble to examine into the nature of each kind of knowledge, but thinking that because of the extravagance of their promises they themselves will command admiration and the teaching of discourse will be held in higher esteem--oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords.
For myself, I should have preferred above great riches that philosophy had as much power as these men claim; for, possibly, I should not have been the very last in the profession nor had the least share in its profits. But since it has no such power, I could wish that this prating might cease. For I note that the bad repute which results therefrom does not affect the offenders only, but that all the rest of us who are in the same profession share in the opprobium.
But I marvel when I observe these men setting themselves up as instructors of youth who cannot see that they are applying the analogy of an art with hard and fast rules to a creative process. For, excepting these teachers, who does not know that the art of using letters remains fixed and unchanged, so that we continually and invariably use the same letters for the same purposes, while exactly the reverse is true of the art of discourse? For what has been said by one speaker is not equally useful for the speaker who comes after him; on the contrary, he is accounted most skilled in this art who speaks in a manner worthy of his subject and yet is able to discover in it topics which are nowise the same as those used by others. But the greatest proof of the difference between these two arts is that oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment, while in the case of letters there is no such need whatsoever. So that those who make use of such analogies ought more justly to pay out than to accept fees, since they attempt to teach others when they are themselves in great need of instruction.
However, if it is my duty not only to rebuke others, but also to set forth my own views, I think all intelligent people will agree with me that while many of those who have pursued philosophy have remained in private life, others, on the other hand, who have never taken lessons from any one of the sophists have become able orators and statesmen. For ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience. Formal training makes such men more skilfull and more resourceful in discovering the possibilities of a subject; for it teaches them to take from a readier source the topics which they otherwise hit upon in haphazard fashion. But it cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers, although it is capable of leading them on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence on many subjects.
But I desire, now that I have gone this far, to speak more clearly on these matters. For I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises, but to those who have some knowledge of these things. But to choose from these elements those which should be employed for each subject, to join them together, to arrange them properly, and also, not to miss what the occasion demands but appropriately to adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase -- these things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind: for this, the student must not only have the requisite aptitude but he must learn the different kinds of discourse and practice himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratorythat the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern after him will, from the outset, show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others. When all of these requisites are found together, then the devotees of philosophy will achieve complete success; but according as any one of the things which I have mentioned is lacking, to this extent must their disciples of necessity fall below the mark.
Now as for the sophists who have lately sprung up and have very recently embraced these pretensions, even though they flourish at the moment, they will all, I am sure, come round to this position. But there remain to be considered those who lived before our time and did not scruple to write the so-called arts of oratory. These must not be dismissed without rebuke, since they professed to teach how to conduct law-suits, picking out the most discredited of terms, which the enemies, not the champions, of this discipline might have been expected to employ--and that too although this facility, in so far as it can be taught, is of no greater aid to forensic than to all other discourse. But they were much worse than those who dabble in disputation; for although the latter expounded such captious theories that were anyone to cleave to them in practice he would at once be in all manner of trouble, they did, at any rate, make professions of virtue and sobriety in their teaching, whereas the former, although exhorting others to study political discourse, neglected all the good things which this study affords, and became nothing more than professors of meddlesomeness and greed.
And yet those who desire to follow the true precepts of this discipline may, if they will, be helped more speedily towards honesty of character than towards facility in oratory. And let no one suppose that I claim that just living can be taught; for, in a word, I hold that there does not exist an art of the kind which can implant sobriety and justice in depraved natures. Nevertheless, I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character.
But in order that I may not appear to be breaking down the pretensions of others while myself making greater claims than are within my powers, I believe that the very arguments by which I myself was convinced will make it clear to others also that these things are true.
Imitatio Reflection
This imitation was much harder than I expected. It was hard for me to pick a speech, and then it was also very difficult to find a modern day example. I chose Isocrates’ ‘Against the Sophists’ for my speech. I spent a long time debating whether I wanted to imitate this speech at all or if I wanted to choose a different speech altogether.
Isocrates’ central concept was what drew me to this speech. I found it interesting how he was accusing the sophists of not being able to deliver on the promises made to their students. Yet, he made sure that it was known that this was only his opinion, not necessarily fact. There were quite a few directions I could have gone with this speech. This speech directly related to politics, but I decided to write my imitation on the Toyota Prius, instead of choosing the more obvious option. The advertising and branding associated with this car are mirrored in Isocrates’ speech. Both the sophists and the Prius promised more than they could deliver.
From this experience, I discovered that delivery is a huge part of making a rhetorically effective speech. Someone could have an extremely strong speech, but a horrible delivery would completely change the outcome and the way the audience hears the words. Listening to a boring, unprepared speech will cause the listener to zone out or not care enough to pay attention to the bad delivery. Because of the arrangement and style, a successful speech is hard to accomplish. The speech needs to be easy to follow. Complicated outlines that jump around are not as effective in auditory rhetoric. One thing I tried to do to make my speech effective, was prepare my speech as if the listener was listening to it on a radio. I had to keep their attention for long enough to get my point across.
Ancient rhetoricians were very successful speakers. Translating this into modern times was difficult for me. I had to read through the speech many times to fully understand what was going on. Isocrates’ speech was very wordy. Compared to speeches today, there were a lot of extra things that are said that would not be in a modern day version of that speech. Isocrates used more than three pages to get his point across, while I felt I said just as much, with more support, in two. Memorizing the speech was also very difficult for me. I got very nervous and just stared at my paper instead of reciting the speech as I knew it. From watching other speeches, I found that speeches committed to memory were much more effective than those simply read off a piece of paper. Those who memorized their speeches really connected with the audience and made eye contact, this made me want to listen and fully pay attention to what was being said.
Isocrates used his speech to define himself from other teachers of rhetoric. He was pointing out how deceitful and profit-driven these teachers were. When opening his own school, he needed a way to distinguish himself from the other sophists. He describes the characteristics of most teachers, and then makes accusations of what is clearly wrong with their teaching styles. I related this concept to the advertising and branding of the Toyota Prius. It used some similar characteristics to those Isocrates used to describe the sophists.
I argued that the Prius is trying to be environmentally friendly, and leave the least possible environmental footprint, but it is actually causing more damage to the ecology of the earth than many popular SUV’s and Hummers. The marketing used to promote these cars was very deceiving also. Claims about the gas mileage and ‘green’ effects on the planet were clearly evident. The tests used on the Prius were out of date, making the gas mileage information incorrect. The process of building and disposing of the batteries used on the Prius causes these cars to leave an unbelievably big carbon footprint on the earth.
This relates to Isocrates’ ‘Against the Sophists’ because of the concept of claiming more than can be delivered. Isocrates claimed that while he was different, all of the sophists could not deliver on the teaching claims they were promoting. While the Toyota Prius claims to be good for the environment, but in reality, it is worse than most other commercial cars.
This experience really opened my eyes to see how valuable ancient rhetoric was to public speaking. Rhetoricians had to learn to use ethos, pathos and logos to their advantage while speaking. This difficult assignment showed me that a lot more time and effort goes into preparing an effect speech, especially one that is memorized. It taught me that the use of logos, pathos and ethos still pays off when building an rhetorically effective speech still.
No comments:
Post a Comment