Seduction of Analogy

Over analysis?

[1]

I think one of the greatest rhetoricians of all-time was Sigmund Freud. He came up with words like "id", "ego", "super ego". We still use these words today and his theories, whether sound or not, are the cornerstones of basic psychology. But one must keep in mind Freud, like many other great legends, had his not so great moments. He was a user and prescribed cocaine. He once prescribed it to a friend coming off of an opium addiction who later died. Yet, as far as "seduction of analogy" goes, Freud takes the cake. Freud himself is guilty of "seduction of analogy". He theorized about himself and applied it to everyone across the board, "I found in myself a constant love for my mother, and jealousy of my father. I now consider this to be a universal event in childhood."[2] Freud went on with more abstract theories, which he really had no evidence in which to prove them. His fantasies about his mother and theories about totemism are only two example where he had no proof other than clever theories which were, and still are, rhetorically convincing.

Freud sought to anchor this pattern of development in the dynamics of the mind. Each stage is a progression into adult sexual maturity, characterized by a strong ego and the ability to delay gratification (cf. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality). He used the Oedipus conflict to point out how much he believed that people desire incest and must repress that desire. The Oedipus conflict was described as a state of psychosexual development and awareness. He also turned to anthropological studies of totemism and argued that totemism reflected a ritualized enactment of a tribal Oedipal conflict. [3]

Though Freud was able to theorize very convincingly, he was abundantly full of abstractions and theorized with no real concrete body of evidence to support his theories. That talent alone is why he he is amongst the great rhetoricians--simply because he was so convincing to so many. But again I argue Freud was basing his theories solely on parallels and literature that he had read. And my theory is that he fantasized while he was reading Sophocles' Oedipus. Then he developed theories from his particular experience and applied them universally, which flies in the face of logic. Freud lived in a world of abstract fantasies and falsehoods, which he believed were true based on his own existential evidence and cocaine usage. His own experiences became the object on which he elaborated theories. But most turned out to be mere "Freudian Fantasy". Take, for instance, his prescribing of cocaine to his friend that later led to his death. He thought he was doing is friend a favor, but because it was only his theory that cocaine was good he suffered the consequences of "the seduction of analogy". In this case, there is a morbid element of irony in that he coined the phrase " seduction of analogy". As I further reduce my view of Freud to somewhat of a pseudo-scientist, I do believe that he truly was a great rhetorician. Which brings me to the cliche' of Nazi analogies and Hitler. But I also think there is one theory of Freud's we can apply here. I think it's safe that Hitler lacked a super-ego (sense of morality) and was severely conflicted between his childlike desire and his inner moral code.

In his later work, Freud proposed that the psyche could be divided into three parts: ego, super-ego, and id. The id is known as the child-like portion of the psyche that is very impulsive and only takes into account what it wants and disregards all consequences. The super-ego is the moral code of the psyche that solely follows right and wrong and takes into account no special circumstances in which the morally right thing may not be right for that situation. Finally, the ego is the balance between the two. It is the part of the psyche that is, usually, portrayed in the person's action, and after the super-ego and id are balanced, the ego acts in a way that takes both impulses and morality into consideration. [4]

[4]

Now if you argue with me here, you've lost the debate before it started. Hitler is amongst the world's most elite rhetoricians. But I think it's safe to say that he used rhetoric in a way that lacked compassion, and I definitely think the only person he was able to sympathize with was himself. To the extent that he was convincing, there is no doubt. Hitler persuaded Nazi generals, and those commanded by them, to carry out mass murder using the most unthinkable, inhumane and immoral methods possible. Then disposing of their bodies like garbage in mass graves. The world was watching as America moved in and Hitler was finally defeated. But not after a mass loss of lives, or after bearing the huge cost of war. But the seduction of analogy is what made Hitler amongst the most powerful and elite rhetoricians to ever live. Hitler's analogy was that of "cultural evolution", being that the Jews showed characteristics less evolved than Germans, thus were inferior Hitler wanted to "put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created." [5] He spread this mantra using parallels to religious and evolutionary theories, to the extent where it was widely acceptable and had it not been for the intervention of the United States and a few other countries, Hitler may have gotten his wish by virtually annihilating the Jews. His ability to accomplish this came from his talent of using persuasive rhetoric. This video of the Holocaust is not an example of good leadership:

[6]

Which brings me to a quote from the anthology, "Whether the Holocaust could ever be a part of any analogy, much less this one, has been regularly debated and disputed. It is the event beyond analogy, many people say. And yet it is part of oblique analogies every day." [7] I think the key word here is oblique. My opinion is that you can never truly compare the suffering of the Holocaust to the suffering of animals because of the magnitude of suffering associated with human suffering and the sheer evil involved with that Nazis. In my opinion, human suffering is a much greater dilemma. Though a digression I think worth noting is our existence is reliant upon the ecosystem, so if we don't take care of that, then we'll induce our own suffering. So there is a sort of rhyme to being compassionate towards nature, but the comparison to animals being systematically slaughtered to the systematic murdering of the Jews is preposterous based on the ground that the Holocaust entailed human suffering. But thats not to say that I agree with another important rhetorician to this discussion, Immanuel Kant. I do think there are some parallels, but the only real use is within the realm of "seduction of analogy". The comparisons lie in how inhumane and systematic the Jews were murdered and the way we systematically kill animals. The key difference being we have customs and principles derived from these customs called laws that say murdering a human being is wrong. Does this mean that killing an animal is not wrong? To the extent Immanuel Kant believes it is not immoral, I disagree. I think there is a balance between the two. From J.M Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, the author criticizes philosophers Plato and Descarte,

"The universe is built upon reason. God is a God of reason. The fact that through the application of reason we can come to understand the rules by which the universe works proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe but have simply to follow tis rules blindly, proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being: that man is godlike, animals thinglike." [7]

Personally, I think reason is part of the universe. Reasonably, we have to accept suffering to a certain extent, yet at the same time realize that since we can reasonably recognize suffering that we can also reasonably reduce it through our actions. Since we deny animals the ability to reason, they aren't held to the same moral codes as we are. But since we can reason, we're inhumane, at best, if we torture and animal. Regarding suffering, I argue there are different magnitudes. My reasoning tells me animals do suffer, unlike the reasoning of philosopher and rhetorician Immanuel Kant. Below we have the Immanuel Kant finger puppet. Immanuel Kant reasoned "with regard to animals, the implications of his intuition that reason may not be the being of the universe but on the contrary merely the being of the human brain." [9]

[10]

But I think modern science can prove the existence of intelligence in animals. Modern animal behavioral studies prove that dolhins, dogs and apes all have some intelligence outside of what is merely instinctual, e.g., the ability to recognize and translate words into meaning. So, I think this alone proves Immanuel Kant wrong. My guess, however, is that we do have it right. With modern science we can see that animals can reason. So if they can reason, it stand to reason that they can certainly feel. Or how would they be able to reason without feelings. And so my analogy lies somewhere in between all the rhetorical abstractions. I think the findings in science have given us our answers. And it's up to us to find our own moral answers from looking at the empirical data science has provided, as well as what should be intuitive to most. The below you tube demonstrates how animals reason in similar ways that we do, that is if you compare the scientific similarities.

[11]

As far as the "seduction of analogy", it seems I've gotten carried away with my own rhetorical rant. But I'm just trying to find some middle ground, using a practical approach to this whole moral problem. It seems there hasn't been many who have written on what seems to be a popular opinion in class. People are going to eat animals, but to what degree do we allow our consciouses to allow them to be slaughtered in such grueling and torturous ways? Aside from the fictional parallels to slavery and the holocaust that bear their questioning in their own, unique rights, the question of animal humanities is another separate question that bears moral consideration. But I think, as Coetzee points out we have to be careful with 'false metaphors'. The analogy between ants and slavery is an erroneous one. And though we have to be able to sympathize with all forms of life, for our own survival (even ants), we have to also demonstrate good sense in where we draw the line between rhetoric and reality.

.

[12]

Vs.

[13]

Reality?

[1] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2568885001_04750b4cc6.jpg?v=0

[2] http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[3]http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sigmund_Freud

[4]]http://www.11th-hour.info/images/hitler.jpg

[5]http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/nazis.htm

[6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aaf-4aL9VE

[7]Coetzee, J.M,Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003),p 67

[8]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[9]oetzee, J.M, Elizabeth Costello (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2003), p 67

[10]http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/kantbig.gif

[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVX54u5Gho8

[12]http://www.minhwind.com/zoom/rhetoric02.jpg

[13]http://www.crystalinks.com/illusionpeak.jpg