The Future Of Consciousness Rhetorical Analysis

1075 Words3 Pages

In the articles, “When Do We Become Truly Conscious” by Daniel Bor and “The Future of Consciousness” by Lance Strate, they both share similar approaches to their viewpoints by infusing emotional and scientific evidence to explain their opinions. Even though they share similar approaches, they do not share similar opinions or conclusions. They show their differences in ethics, structural, tonal, and diction variations.
In both Bor and Strate’s articles the authors draw the reader in to their viewpoints using emotional appeals. Bor draws you in immediately by including a picture of his daughter on an ultrasound machine at 20 weeks and an image of her at 2 years old. By doing this, he gets the reader emotionally invested in a huge dilemma our …show more content…

Bor makes the readers become invested in the idea of pro-life on the issue of abortion even though he in the end shocks one into being pro-choice, while Strate gets the reader invested on his actual viewpoint of the future of consciousness expanding in many more discoveries. They share similarities in the way they approach different views but Boar almost shocks you with his actual viewpoint because he presents it all in a way in the beginning that deceives you. Strate, on the other hand, directly addresses his viewpoint on each example guiding you straight to his opinions. While both Bor and Strate use similar ways to approach their viewpoints they differ in the aspect of Bor’s article is filled with ethics and morals that guide you between the theory of right and wrong while Strate includes little to no ethical appeals. Other than the ethical detailing, they’re similar in that element of approaching. Bor tries to debate on the ethical topics of when we become conscious, if animals are conscious like humans, and the right and wrong conclusions we can draw from the knowledge we discover. Strate on the other hand tries to describe and support his theory of what the future of consciousness looks like and what could possibly destroy it for us all. Yes, they both cover the topic of consciousness but hold completely varied conclusions and …show more content…

Bor starts his article with the sentence “it is easy to view consciousness as a kind of magic.” That sparks an interest in you immediately by his choice of diction and comparison of it to something so beautiful and enchanting as magic. That sentence alone makes you curious on what he could possibly state to make the comparison so captivating. Strate starts off his article immediately on the other side of the chart. “If you do not like what I have to say, it is my sincere hope that you hold Allen Flagg personally responsible for whatever defects you happen to identify.” (Strate PP 63)By including this in his introductory paragraph it gives off the atmosphere of him not even supporting his own article nor what he is talking about. By doing this, Strate immediately loses interest accreditation because no one would feel desire to read about something that even the author didn’t want credit with writing. Strate then goes into so much depth and detail that he doesn’t even reach his actual viewpoint until roughly page fifteen of his eighteen page article. He structures his article off based and data filled which makes you not even realize until page fifteen what the actual viewpoint he’s arguing truly is. While Strate guides you off track, Bor builds you up in an invested viewpoint and continuously lures you into his opinion scientifically, emotionally,

More about The Future Of Consciousness Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document