Constructive Summary And Analysis

For me, the class was primarily about a contest, but not the contest that I originally had in mind. While I was expecting to focus primarily on the contests between different thinkers, and on a contest between the ideas of people within our classroom, the greatest and most important contest for me, was the contest that took place inside of me. The contest that took place within me was a contest regarding soft skills and hard skills. It was not a contest in which one set of skills had to win, and another had to lose, but rather a contest to maintain both skillsets in a healthy balance with each other. Two authors, JRR Martin, the author of A Song of Ice and Fire, and Aristotle, provide insight into the personal challenge that I faced during …show more content…
Therefore, in order to win the battle to balance the two aforementioned conversation styles, I had to place a greater emphasis on the soft skillset. I had to change the way in which I engaged with controversial subjects and materials and emphasize a less critical and deconstructive approach and be more empathically reconstructive. Rather than simply breaking down arguments to find faults, I had to try and understand learn the arguments and build into my understanding of them the perspective of speaker or writer. While we were still allowed in class to critique the thoughts of various authors, our professors placed those critiques took place within the context of a greater analysis. The greater analysis prompted us to ask some of the following questions: What is at stake for people who engage in discourse about this particular subject? What is the impact that some words and ideas regarding this subject have on others and on society as a whole? Is there room for understanding between people who might disagree on this topic? The goal of such analysis being a desire to understand the viewpoints of others and to engage with them in a way that could build community with others across profound …show more content…
We used this exercise during a discussion on medically-assisted suicide after splitting into groups of two. In this exercise the speaker spent time summarizing the main points of their essay to a listener and the listener then paraphrased the speaker’s remarks back to the speaker. Afterwards, the original speaker could either express satisfaction with the paraphrasing and/or attempt to clarify any misunderstandings conveyed by the listener, and then the listener and the speaker reversed roles. My conversation partner for that exercise was Yvette, who had a different position from me on the issue. She believed like Joseph Raz, that society ought to allow people to commit medically assisted suicide out of respect for individual autonomy. I took the position that such procedures were always immoral and that Raz’s analysis was flawed. Although my mind was already made up on the matter, I took Amy’s instruction seriously and listened intently to Yvette, and paraphrased her argument back to her. She told me that I had done so accurately and then it was my turn to summarize my own argument. I thought that paraphrasing a position that I disagreed with would be difficult, and it was, but the exercise helpfully diffused tension in the conversation. By verbally restating Yvette’s argument, it was easier to empathize with her and understand