The Rookee
the new kid in town

They’re Back - Teacher Quotes 2

This time, the lucky professor is none other than the legendary, quirky, wonderful Daniel Coffeen, my Rhetoric 10 professor. There won’t be as many as there were last time, but these are a bit . . . more. Rather than laughing at the giddy confusion of a woman who spends a little bit too much time thinking about cod, this post often containes some deceptively bright witticisms by the man who best embodies the field of study into which I am plunging. Many are from his introduction to the course, which itself is entitled “Introduction to Logic, Reason, and Argument.” Enjoy.

“Everything’s a freaking argument. . . . Everything. Every freaking thing. A flower plant, your eyelids, this chalkboard . . .”

“The problem with the statement ‘everything is an argument’ is that ‘everything is an argument’ is a valid argument, and so is ‘not everything is an argument’.”

“Formal logic is based on proof. Proof is the end of argument. Rhetoric begins precisely when the question of proof has been rendered moot. Only when proof is moot can rhetoric exist, when proof is an argument itself.”

Rhetoric is this strange beast . . . that helps us negotiate a world where there is no certainty.

“I came out of this program with a Ph. D. and I don’t know anything.”

[On current events, and in response to the previous]“I know we bombed a country in the Middle East, and it seemed rude.”

“A tulip is an argument: this is the way to be. Stand up straight. Bend a little. Be purple.”

“We’ll talk a lot about the argument grass makes.”

[Justifying a grant to fund the continued existence of the Rhetoric department]“Uh, I study the way things . . . go? In the world?”

[Closing his first lecture] “I’m skinny, but I can hold a lot of booze. People are surprised by that.”

“I might have made a good portion of this up; it doesn’t really matter.”

“As the name differs, so likewise does the reality”

“Go home, teach your parents this word [Ecceity, literally ‘this-ness’]. They’ll have you pulled out.”

“That’s our one enemy. The adamant prick”

“Tulips are so, like, groovy. They don’t need to proliferate, they stand alone”

“I urge you to get through an hour without some phatic discourse [pauses and meaningless utterings like “um”].”

“Your hair is brown, true or false. Rhetoric is the hippest major, true or false. Coffeen is full of shit, true or false. These things are verifiable, right?”

“I did my laundry today . . . that’s a sentence that should never leave somebody’s mouth [speaking of its banality, not of the virtues of cleanliness].”

“What’s at stake is whether you’re afraid of life or you enjoy it. That’s rhetoric.”

“There is something about being in a frat that means you have to like bad music.”

[On professionalism, his lack of it, and the reasons for professors’ dislike of him at an art academy] “I mean I can be an asshole, but these guys are all assholes, so if it’s on that grounds, then we’re all kind of equal.”

“An MD has never told me one fucking thing that I didn’t already know. But I can’t write my own prescriptions, so I have to go see these idiots.”

“Do you know what I’m talking about? Wait until you’re older and start to die.”

“I have always wanted to start this thinktank called ‘the society of individuals.’ [laughter]. It isn’t funny. But I guess you’re laughing and that’s the point.”

“Multilogical? Polylogial, that sounds less grotesque.”

“Socrates is the Gene Kelley of philosophy.”

“The book [Plato’s Phaedrus] says by the end . . . that all writing is play, it is never serious. You’re reading the fucking thing! I don’t understand how the history of the world missed the irony, but it did. . . . This is not subtle, he’s hitting you over the head with it. ”

“Is the Socratic legacy that all young handsome men should love old poor men?”


And so concludes volume 2. Comment, if you dare.


Sarah wrote

'“An MD has never told me one fucking thing that I didn’t already know. But I can’t write my own prescriptions, so I have to go see these idiots.”' ^_^ Oh hell yes for heading towards the profession that can write prescriptions... and d

DB wrote

I was wondering what your response to that would be.

douglas.nerad wrote
From the sounds of it...

If Mookee could go back and do it all over again he'd take the Rhetoric path. It is argumentative for no good reason and is justified by the flimsy reasoning that it's there so do it. At least that's the impression I'm left with from the quote


DB wrote
Well . . .
It's not so much argument for no good reason as the general philosophy that there is no 'good' reason for argument or bad reason for argument; there only is argument. It is justified not by what you stated but by the belief that it's the only way to approach all things successfully. I am an adamant prick, however. Also, apparently it's "Haecceity," not Ecceity.

Mookee wrote

But why would one major in arguing for arguing's sake, especially when one can easily argue that they're already an expert prior to even studying?

DB wrote

Because the job world doesn't respect me saying I can argue quite as much as it respects Berkeley saying I can argue, for some reason. Although I wish this wasn't the case.

Mookee wrote

Does the the job world really have employment for an expert that believes arguing for the sake of arguing is actually worth paying someone to do? I guess if the expert were good enough he could probably convince someone with money that such a job was necessary.

...and someone must be that good, because we pay those experts to make more of them in the university system ... funny though, outside that system there really isn't a use for it (from a cash standpoint). All one intelligent person would have to do would be to understand the whole system exists only because someone has convinced someone else that it should exist. It's kind of like The Matrix, or better yet, The Truman Show...stop believing and the whole system will fall apart.

Wow. I haven't done that in a while. It was fun.


Mookee wrote

Does the the job world really have employment for an expert that believes arguing for the sake of arguing is actually worth paying someone to do? I guess if the expert were good enough he could probably convince someone with money that such a job was necessary.

...and someone must be that good, because we pay those experts to make more of them in the university system ... funny though, outside that system there really isn't a use for it (from a cash standpoint). All one intelligent person would have to do would be to understand the whole system exists only because someone has convinced someone else that it should exist. It's kind of like The Matrix, or better yet, The Truman Show...stop believing and the whole system will fall apart.

Wow. I haven't done that in a while. It was fun.


DB wrote

Yes. It's called litigation.

douglas.nerad wrote
Also...
There are pundits (political, social, etc), talk show hosts, and philosophers.

Ryland wrote
ain't no holla back, nerd
I was out of school for some time and now, upon my return at the ripe young age of 24, am loving it all the more. A large part, I think, is the joy Daniel brings to his lectures-as-rants. It's what I thought, all bright and shiny and dumb at 18, what college was supposed to be like. Glad I finally found the Rhetoric department: it's definitely the hippest, grooviest place I could find. Tulips are pure dope. As is, oddly, Nietzsche. I was averse to ever diving in before thanks to a lot of... I don't know, really... regardless, NOW! Now I can't get enough. The guy was obviously wacked out and wiggling but most left-field genius types are, aren't they?

Harumph wrote

Let me tell you a secret: he gets it all from his older brother (well, maybe he's put a gloss or two on it of his own; I have to give him that). Signed affectionately His loving older brother.

Click the button to