Pathetic Proofs (Pathos)

This chapter focused on pathetic proofs, also known as Pathos. I found a great amount of the material interesting, but what really caught my eye was when the reading mentioned that “people tend to think of emotions as belonging to individuals” (Crowley 171) and therefore do not always trust them. There was also talk of the phenomena when people can experience emotions together as a group and how this can intensify the emotions felt. This is something that is drawn upon by many rhetors and can be a useful tool when using a pathetic appeal to an audience. This got me thinking about the group instance of emotional appeal though. The book mentions 9/11 and how it brought our country together, which is fine and dandy, but why did something that affected so many individuals on a personal level strike a national chord of emotion? It was because the attack on the twin towers could be seen as an attack to every single person in our country. Coincidentally while writing this I received an amber alert on my phone which got me to thinking about why something as random as an amber alert for someone one does not know can trigger an emotional reaction. The answer I came to was that its just like 9/11, hearing news like that makes one think what if it was me or my family that this happened to. This is something that ancient rhetors used to rely upon, for example in modern times when the president addressed the country after 9/11 there was a great emotional appeal that drove the idea of going to war because the country felt vulnerable.

Aristotle also made many contributions to the understanding of pathetic appeal, in fact, “he defined emotions as those things through which, by undergoing change, people come to differ in their judgments” (Crowley 175). This is interesting because it seems simple, but what it seems to me that he’s saying is that peoples emotions are based on their different experiences. So how then does a rhetor make an emotional appeal to a large audience? This is where the 9/11 example comes in, the rhetor must find something, some emotion that the audience can all share. This is also why when using emotional appeal many speakers pair it with either ethos or logos in addition. Pathos in many cases seems to be used merely as an additive in my opinion.

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Boethius

Boethius a Roman philosopher held that rhetoric is just a means of using methods to apply arguments. He felt that philosophy and rhetoric differed in that, philosophy (dialect) “deals with general questions, whereas rhetorical argument deals with specific instances (hypotheses)” (Herzberg 486). The reading pointed to the ironic nature of Boethius’s lack of interest in rhetoric since he was so important to the rhetorical theory. His importance in part came in the form of his work The Consolation of Philosophy which he wrote in prison explaining philosophy’s ability to help one cope with preparing for death. He supposed that rhetoric was just applying general rules of argumentation and that it had merely a form based structure.

The reading continues by moving onto this structure in discussing the structure of rhetoric. If the text wasn’t confusing enough already it surely does not get any more understandable here. Though it may be a bit much to rephrase and analyze every one of the listed steps, I feel that much of the substance itself is based on the fact that one was able to put “rhetoric” and its theory into steps for one to learn and it merely solidifies Boethius’s claim that rhetoric was just applying general rules of argumentation and that it had merely a form based structure. The steps aren’t so much steps however as they are sections of rhetoric breaking down all of the different aspects and parts of rhetoric for one to understand.

                         

Ethos

Ethos as discussed in chapter 6 is ethical proof, or ethos. Ethical proof is based on a person’s character and as the reading suggested, is either invented or situated. Though when we think of someone’s character as their traits based on personal experiences, this is not how things worked in ancient times. The reason is that “we tend to identify character with personality, and hence someone’s character is fairly stable” (Crowley 149). Though this is how people understand it today I found it interesting that in ancient time peoples character was based more on their moral values and practices. I asked myself which of these interpretations of one character lends to creating a greater ethical appeal to the audience.  On the one hand, using ones personality to determine their credit and ethical standing can be a useful method. However, this method usually involves situated ethical proofs, at least in the manner that I understood it. This is because a person’s personality is seen as mostly set and permanent. Whereas when character is determined based on ones practices it is ultimately more able to change and open to influence by the person.

When inventing ethos or a character a rhetor can do many things. The reading states that the speaker does not often know the people he is talking to and vice versa, thus he must sometimes invent ethos. He can create credibility with his character by “doing his homework” and proving that they understand the issue to the audience, also he can highlight his traits worthy of mentioning to gain ethical understanding and merit. Additionally, he can generate trust from his audience by providing them with the information they need without smothering them. In other words, avoid patronizing them and create a sense of an almost two way understanding of one another. By that I mean making the audience feel like they aren’t being treated like an audience but rather equals in the issue. When dealing with situated ethos audiences assumingly already know who the rhetor is in that they understand and usually accept their ethical appeal and credibility due to a usually preexisting social standing in the community or other such social structure.  

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Chapter 5: Logical Proof :LOGOS

Chapter 5 focuses on Logical proof and reasoning also known as logos.  Aristotle actually created four methods of logic that can break down how to argue on issues. Scientific demonstration was the first method which came from true premises and demanded that the premises be scientifically accepted as a common truth. Dialectical reasoning being the second method does not guarantee that the premises are common truths, rather the “premises are accepted by people who are supposed to be especially wise” (Crowley 119). The third is rhetorical reasoning which draws upon truths that are accepted by a whole community and the fourth is contentious reasoning which only uses premises that are very widely accepted. However, in terms of comparing one to another, these four methods differ in their degree to which those arguing about them accept them as true.

            When using logic as with logos, there are different methods for using the premises to provide a logical argument. Deduction is one of these methods and it involves starting with general premises and moving on to more specific premises. For example: 1 all people have a heart, 2 Saul is a person 3 therefore Saul has a heart. Induction on the other hand uses the opposite method starting narrow and moving onto broader topics. An example of this could be: “if the skilled pilot is the best pilot, and if the skilled charioteer the best charioteer, then the skilled person is the best person in any particular sphere” (Crowley 124). The last of these methods mentioned is enthymemes. Enthymemes are arguments where one premise is not explicitly stated. An example of this that the book gives is apples “think different advertising campaign. In fact, “the slogan ‘think different’, is a highly truncated enthymeme in which only the conclusion is stated” (Crowley 127). Apple uses the rest of the advertisement to provide the premises such as how historical figures have been able to think different and such. These kinds of methods are actually employed a lot in what would be the use of abstract advertisement. Not to say that the advertisement would be random, however it is usually the ads like car commercials and such. They will show a series of shots and images which can be seen as premises and then the end will flash a slogan or something and the conclusion is drawn out. I was aware of deduction and induction  before however enthymeme methods were interesting to learn about.

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

The common topics and commonplaces

This chapter was a bit challenging for me to comprehend, however I did find some things interesting about it. It was interesting that rhetoricians from ancient times would refer to common topics and commonplaces as actual places literally and interestingly enough they would imply that they were kept away somewhere hidden. These topics, or “topos” were used to provide a basis and reason for the argument a rhetorician was making. The chapter speaks of how common topics are used and how the use of some questions allow for the understanding and grasp of a topic to form. For example, Aristotle’s three questions he used for common topics were conjecture, degree, and possibility. Basically, if something has or hasn’t happened, if something is greater or smaller than something else, and if something is or isn’t possible. The very interesting thing about conjecture is that it is based on the individual and their view of the situation. For example the reading cited a case in which President Obama and Sarah Palin had differing conjectures about the same issue. Palin claimed that Obama created “death panels” with his new healthcare bill and it was her conjecture that led her to believe that this was the case. However when Obama explained himself he explained that the rumor was merely a misinterpretation of the fact that he was allowing people to bill insurance for death counseling. This wasn’t a death panel, but he was helping the people by allowing insurance to cover things related to dying that wouldn’t otherwise be covered. Thus, his conjecture was that he believed the death panels did not happen. The topic of degree was one that was also very interesting because it instantly made sense to me once I read the quote from Aristotle about the golden mean. “we know that which is great, he wrote, when it is compared to the normal; likewise for that which is small” (Crowley 92). The third common topic of Aristotle’s is possibility, and this in my opinion leaves the most room for personal speculation. It may be a very good determinant of topics and help in order to explain and or answer a question, but it didn’t completely make sense to me how it is put into practice. I understood the conclusions of arguments being based on possibility, but the only way I see the question of possibility helping or hindering a rhetoricians argument is in the conclusion of said argument.  

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Achieving Stasis by Asking the Right Questions

The theory of stasis is seemingly complex but this may be only because our language does not have a word for stasis. The stasis theory is employed to find arguments and responses to arguments based on a set of questions that rhetors must review systematically when preparing to speak or argue an issue. The stasis theory is also used in sorts to bring the two parties to a middle ground with which to argue out their issues.

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students gives a great example of this in explaining the abortion debate. In this case stasis must not only mean to come to agreement about the terms of the argument but also in some cases to agree to disagree. The parties must be arguing on the same grounds which is actually the main problem in the abortion argument according to the reading. This is because the prolife side of the abortion argument argues that abortion is murder and the prochoice side argues that abortion is a choice up to the mother. That argument never states that abortion isn’t murder, it merely presumes that the mother has a right to choose. This whole inability to match up didn’t make sense to me until I read that parties in the abortion case should split the argument and agree to disagree. Which means that the issues need to be decided if abortion is murder or abortion is not murder. Additionally the issues need to be decided that women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies or that they don’t.(Crowley 59)  So upon agreeing to disagree knowing full well that they are arguing different points the parties in the abortion argument can achieve stasis.

My personal opinion about today’s contemporary issues that parties argue about is that stasis is not met very often. This is because in my opinion since everyone has a voice due to the media and since there are so many possible perspectives for one issue it is difficult to reach a point of stasis. For example, these days when two politicians debate they do not only prepare arguments and responses, but they prepare on issues that may be irrelevant but show their opponent in a bad light in order to refrain from shedding bad images upon themselves. This creates a sort of inability to argue on the same facts about the same points, rather it’s a lot like the abortion argument. However this is purely speculation on my part what do you guys think?

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Chapter 2: Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation: Seizing the Moment

“Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation” focuses on kairos and how kairos is very much a key part of any rhetorical situation. Ancient Greeks had multiple concepts of time, in such that they defined chronos as measurable time and Kairos as a separate element of time. Rather than being a measurable thing, karios was more of a theoretical notion that timing within rhetorical situations is opportunistic and one must capitalize on this when employing rhetoric. I feel that such a notion must have been extremely important in ancient times since assembly and the ability to shed light on an issue may have been extremely limited and in some cases impossible. However I would ask, does todays ability to post to social media and the web give a greater occurrence of this Kairos notion since any person or group can reach the masses easily through social media? Does the fact that people can be bombarded with advertisement and testimony on issues at the click of a button?

            I say no. Though it may seem that society can be reached easily due to our current interconnectivity and constant state of feeding on web based information, this is not the case. In fact, I would argue that this extreme state of interconnectivity and web based information creates a lessened ability for Kairos to be practiced. As I understand it, Kairos is supposed to relate to the timing and opportunity used by a rhetoric appeal, and when society becomes used to the social media bombardment and constant advertising it becomes even harder for rhetorical appeal to do its job. This is because the constant presence of issues and topics people are exposed to leads them to block out most things they don’t find appeal in. Thus, appeal must be that much greater and focused on target markets. This is why sites such as Facebook and other web based companies keep track of people’s internet searches and interests, because then it becomes easier to pin point your location within certain target markets and successfully appeal to you.

            In continuing with the readings, Kairos can be understood in certain rhetorical situations as questions. For example the book mentions the urgency of an issue as part of Kairos. The book continues to say that the shelf life of a topic or issue can be different and affect situations in many ways. I would then ask as I did earlier, does media affect this? Is the shelf life of an issue extended or shortened by media?

            This one is tough and I would say there are many different ways of looking at it however, just as previously stated, the constant bombardment of topics and issues people face makes it hard for an issue to seem important for a long time. Granted the book states that there are certain issues which stand the test of time such as abortion I would say that most shelf lives are shortened and the ones that are extended such as abortion are due to the ever changing knowledge people have access to on these issues. What do my readers think? I know this is a bit wordy, but I was having trouble understanding the readings fully.

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.