John Slaughter revisits the changing face of engineering

As a computer science major, I do not deny the importance of STEM majors. Slaughter made a very good argument as to why diversity in the engineering field needs to continue growing. Getting people from all different backgrounds helps broaden the collective viewpoint of everyone in the field of study.  When more observations or points of view are considered, people can make better decisions when trying to solve problems. More importantly, they will be able to understand which problems need addressing. That way, more people can be helped through the scientific progress brought by the new, diverse generation of engineers and scientists.

Later in the article, Slaughter mentions the importance of the humanities, and how engineers and scientists need to be refined in social, ethical, and cultural aspects. Again, I agree with many of the points that he made. People working in the scientific field cannot only have a scientific understanding. They need to be able to apply this understanding to how their scientific progress affects the world. If they do think about the implications their work can have on humanity, disastrous consequences may arise. For example, the Manhattan Project was a giant step in the world of physics. Scientifically, it was a major success in harnessing the power of the atom. However, the way it was used to end World War II is still morally unclear today. The Cold War was another unseen side-effect of the development of nuclear weapons. No one is sure whether it could have been avoided, but we can learn from history and make sure that our current engineers and scientists are more knowledgeable in the humanities, so that they may bring the world into a more hopeful future. 

Letter from Birmingham Jail

King’s eloquent writing certainly has the ability to captivate his audience, much like his speaking. Many of the ideas King presented in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” echoed the philosophies of Gandhi wrote of in “Satyagraha.” King wrote to his fellow clergymen about the civil rights movement he was participating in and the injustice of segregation going on in Birmingham at the time. He said that he was disappointed that the church did not support the civil rights movement. King also explained the power of non-violent resistance and why it was so important that they follow it. This flowed very well with other Gandhi ideas, such as suffering punishment for disobeying an unjust law. However, there were a few factors that separated King from Gandhi. Aside from the two different tasks they tried to achieve, King was a devout Christian and reverend. He spoke of many Biblical scenarios and applied them to the current day. King was also a much better presenter than Gandhi. His writing is more intriguing and King was well known for his powerful and moving speeches. Although Gandhi was a revolutionary in the idea of non-violent resistance, he was not as charismatic as the African-American activist. 

Satyagraha

I really enjoyed reading Gandhi’s Satyagraha. I agree with a lot of the points he made. Passive resistance, or the use of the soul-force, is a powerful tool against those who rely on brute force. If you are facing a much stronger enemy, then there is no point in trying to use physical strength against him. However, soul-force is an unexpected tactic that confuses opponents and makes a strong message.

            The reader/editor parts were especially interesting. I’m not sure if Gandhi actually took those reader comments from people he’s dealt with, or if he made up those counter-arguments. Either way, they were very effective in proving his point. Though the reader seemed to know what he was talking about, the editor used many different examples to prove him wrong. Not to sound like a hippy, but peace, love, and positive emotions are always stronger and healthier than war, hate, and negative emotions. 

The Concept of Discourse Communities

            This was a very tough read. The language was very dense and I had to sometimes read over certain passages several times just to get the gist of it. However, once I got through it, I enjoyed several aspects of discourse communities. I also appreciated the introductory “Framing the Reading” part, because it helped explain and prepare most of the reading for me. It defined some of the terms Swales used, which helped when trying to decipher the piece.

            The six criteria Swales outlined made it a bit easier to understand what exactly a discourse community is. These six characteristics: goals, mechanisms, transfer of information, genres, lexis, and changing membership, define what can be a discourse community. It was interesting to read about the different groups that Swales classified. The Hong Kong Study Circle and café owners are discourse communities, but political parties and people who work at a certain university, are not discourse communities.

            Now I wonder what groups I may be involved in that are considered discourse communities. One example that I can think of may be musical composers. I write music for my band, but I have written music for all types of instruments, so I consider myself a composer. The goal of all composers is to write and share music. We use mechanisms of intercommunication like different musical terminology. The music that we write could be considered the information that we try to communicate with these mechanisms. When I first read genre, I immediately thought of musical genres, but composers have their own genre (in Swales' definition) that they understand rhetorical situations with. There are many lexis and terms specifically created for the composition of music. Last but not least, there are always new and upcoming composers, such as myself, slowly replacing the modern and experienced composers, such as Eric Whitacre (I could only dream). Going through the six requirements, I believe I have correctly established musical composers as a discourse community. 

Writing Assignment 1: Introduction

            My brother, my father, and I used to watch a show called “Deadliest Warrior”, where scientists, historians, and weapons specialists, tried to see which two historical warriors, or groups of warriors, would win in combat. The matches ranged from Viking vs. Samurai to Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz. This historical “versus” situation could be applied to other questions, such as “who was the best leader?” One particular example is the comparison between Lao- Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli.  Both have written works concerning the topic of leadership, although they are dramatically different. They could both be applied to modern society and analyzed to see who would better run a country in the Western world.

            Lao Tzu’s style of leadership incorporated Taoist ideals. Many of these ideals could be useful to the modern government, especially with the financial crisis we are currently in. However, ideals are not always applicable to the real world. Lao Tzu endorses a lot of passive leadership, which can be difficult to enact in a large Western government with many factions. Machiavelli’s style of leadership is much more centralized and requires a strong ruler. His Prince is an expert of war and would put the protection of his people as his number one priority. This exceptional familiarity with wartime history and strategy would be helpful in the current times of our nation sending soldiers to places that may hardly concern us. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s rule comes with a complete lack of morality that, although would be hidden from the general public, makes him unfit to lead a nation into a future of social and technological progress. Even though the versus situation calls for a winner, this question is not so simple. Both Lao Tzu’s Master and Machiavelli’s Prince have definite flaws that would hinder them from becoming successful leaders in a modern Western country.