I really found chapter seven extremely interesting of the ARCS text. Using emotion and passion for to persuade your audience is intriguing to me. I categorize myself as being a more pathos type person, using emotion to logic a lot, more than using logic to logic. In another class that I am taking, I found it very interesting because the professor asked us how we find evidence and if we use logic, emotion or experience. In another universe, it would be nice if I could first use logic, then experience following by emotion; however, in reality, I am the complete opposite. I usually base evidence off of emotion, experience then logic. I am very quick to react and follow my gut instincts and then act upon that emotion instead of logically thinking about it. I find it funny, because I think gender has a huge role in that as well. Between male and female, women are always going to react emotionally, while men always want to think logically.
Watching my parents over the years and now talking to my mom and dad about my own issues, it is interesting to hear the two sides to it. My mom is always on the emotional side while my dad is always tuning me into the logical side of things. Between them, I have a great balance, however on my own, I don't have the logic in tune yet.
One part of the chapter I really enjoyed was the basis of Honorific and Pejorative Language. Context and vernacular can dictate the path of the argument. I also like what the chapter said. "That is, honorific and pejorative language conveys value judgements." (ARCS pg. 187) When speaking, someone will solely base their assumptions and judgements on what you sound like and how you present yourself. If you look scummy, you will most likely not gain the success you were looking for. If you look sharp, people will at first glance end up listening to you more.
When it comes to our giant textbook, The Rhetoric Tradition, I found it pleasing to read about Anonymous, and the way letters have formed. I think the form of a letter is very important. It can dictate a number of things, including whether its personal or formal, the importance of the letter and how official it may be. I had no idea that there were so many different types of letters, as well as, realizing there are five parts to the letter. I have grown in modern times, where it was a requirement to know how to format a letter, but I guess I never realized there were names to each part.
I really enjoyed these two chapters today. I look forward to discussion.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2014
Readings for Sept. 23
What I found interesting about Boethius was his take on the five parts of rhetoric. Now that we are getting later into the history of rhetoric and a lot of it is no longer original, I thought it was interesting that he could break down rhetoric even more. According to Boethius, rhetoric has five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. Which he then amazes me again and break it down even more into species. However, he states this: "Now if rhetoric is completely present in each of its species, then all these parts must be present in each of its species. Therefore they all must be used in in treating any public business when the issues are clearly assigned to one of the above mentioned species of rhetoric. It makes no difference whether the matter is treated in a judicial manner, in a deliberative manner, or in a demonstrative manner; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery must all be present." (RT, pg. 489)
I like his idea behind this because it is stating that all these parts must be present for it to be successful. I believe that rhetoric can be successful in the same ways that Aristotle and Cicero mentioned, however, I like Boethius because he seems to stick to his word. I also like his addition it to it by saying a tool must be required to help gain that success. Boethius says "That tool is the oration, which is sometimes a civil nature, sometimes its not. (...) When that kind of oration treats an issue of civil importance, it moves forward without a break in continuity: when it does not deal with matters of public concern, it is developed through questions and answers." (RT, pg. 489) This is also very interesting.
Bringing in the public to a debate or discussion always turns it into a popularity contest instead of choosing it for the right reasons. By not allowing the public to express themselves, the people discussing the issue are discussing for themselves, not for the concern that their decision will make them unpopular. Public belief is a huge part in rhetoric, and I believe that people will always have some concern about what other people think about them.
I like his idea behind this because it is stating that all these parts must be present for it to be successful. I believe that rhetoric can be successful in the same ways that Aristotle and Cicero mentioned, however, I like Boethius because he seems to stick to his word. I also like his addition it to it by saying a tool must be required to help gain that success. Boethius says "That tool is the oration, which is sometimes a civil nature, sometimes its not. (...) When that kind of oration treats an issue of civil importance, it moves forward without a break in continuity: when it does not deal with matters of public concern, it is developed through questions and answers." (RT, pg. 489) This is also very interesting.
Bringing in the public to a debate or discussion always turns it into a popularity contest instead of choosing it for the right reasons. By not allowing the public to express themselves, the people discussing the issue are discussing for themselves, not for the concern that their decision will make them unpopular. Public belief is a huge part in rhetoric, and I believe that people will always have some concern about what other people think about them.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Readings for Sept. 18th.
I really enjoyed the section about Establishing good character. I believe that Cicero had the right idea about focusing on your character and self, versus pinning your opinion about others. I really liked "Cicero encouraged rhetors to extol their 'merits or worth or virtue of some kind, particularly generosity, sense of duty, justice and good faith.'" By saying this, I think that Cicero had a good hand on the idea of how to win over an audience through your character." (pg. 157) He also suggested that rhetors weaken charges or suspicions that had been cast on their character, and to elaborate on misfortunes or difficulties that had befallen them to strengthen their audience's estimate of their ability to bear suffering." I believe that this is a very good point when it comes to persuading an audience. By sharing personal parts of your life to the audience so they can relate can help make a case for you. I believe that to connect with an audience at an emotional level comes in handy in the long run. That way they can connect with you and understand your side of things.
I also enjoyed the section on securing goodwill. Cicero hits the nail on the head with the first sentence of that paragraph. "If we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance." (pg. 159) By doing so, we avoid our audience tuning us out from the beginning. If you enter modestly with an open mind, yet determined to get your point across, you may be more successful than just going in arrogant. By understanding what the audience already knows, you can help justify your side by providing information that they don't have yet.
I really enjoyed the example of movie reviewers. Their job is to be honest, yet positive so their audience will believe their future reviews. By securing goodwill with your audience, the next time you need to persuade, you will have a more fair chance by keeping a fair reputation. Reputation is all about rhetoric as well. Having a fair and strong reputation, someone that you can rely on, and getting the job is done is very important. A reputation can hold a lot longer than people think, which can dictate how things go in the future. With comes a good reputation, can follow with power.
Overall, what I am trying to say is that being a good person, holding strong morals and values, and seeing the right in the worst possible situations will benefit you long term.
I also enjoyed the section on securing goodwill. Cicero hits the nail on the head with the first sentence of that paragraph. "If we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance." (pg. 159) By doing so, we avoid our audience tuning us out from the beginning. If you enter modestly with an open mind, yet determined to get your point across, you may be more successful than just going in arrogant. By understanding what the audience already knows, you can help justify your side by providing information that they don't have yet.
I really enjoyed the example of movie reviewers. Their job is to be honest, yet positive so their audience will believe their future reviews. By securing goodwill with your audience, the next time you need to persuade, you will have a more fair chance by keeping a fair reputation. Reputation is all about rhetoric as well. Having a fair and strong reputation, someone that you can rely on, and getting the job is done is very important. A reputation can hold a lot longer than people think, which can dictate how things go in the future. With comes a good reputation, can follow with power.
Overall, what I am trying to say is that being a good person, holding strong morals and values, and seeing the right in the worst possible situations will benefit you long term.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Response to Readings for Sept. 16
Well, I definitely thought this week was very interesting. First off, I am doing my Imitatios speech based off of one of Cicero's speeches, so I thought it was kind of cool to learn some more facts about him, however, I don't want to spoil my speech, so I will talk about that later!
However, what I found really cool this time was all the crazy reasoning in rhetoric. I am still honestly really amazed all the detail and characteristics behind rhetoric. There is just so much to think about. I really, really enjoyed Quintilian's definition of rhetoric and argument. On page 120 of ARCS book, it stated this. "Quintilian defined arguments in rhetoric and logic as methods 'of proving what is not certain by means of what is certain.' Thus, such arguments enable 'one thing to be inferred from another,'; they also confirm 'facts which are uncertain by reference to facts which are certain.' Without some way of moving from the certain to the uncertain, Quintilian argued, we'd have no way of proving anything." (pg. 120) I thought this was extremely interesting, because I do believe that he is absolutely right. It later states in the following paragraphs this: "The reason for the relative certainty of statements about probable human action is that human behavior in general is predictable to some extent." (pg. 120) This in my mind also struck a cord and made me start thinking crazily about what this means.
I started thinking about whenever I would have discussions (to put it nicely) with my family when I lived back home. It was always the same routine, my brother would want to do something, my dad would agree because he has always hated being the bad guy and my mom would do the whole mom thing and say it wasn't safe (which majority of the time, she was right). By the time I was in college and would come home during break for the holiday's, this stuff was pretty predictable and it always played out the same (I was the bystander about 90% of the time). But after reading about this, it hit me. In hindsight, there behavior is always going to be predictable. If I pointed it out, I bet they would see it too, so it probably isn't a mystery, but it is really interesting how human behavior basically throws itself onto a hamster wheel and will keep going.
Don't get me wrong, I love my family and they are all amazing people, but human behavior is one of the most predictable things. It all becomes habit, which I believe is sort of what Quintilian was saying. The three premises stated at the end of the section perfectly sum up what I was trying to say. "Quintilian regarded three sorts of statements as probable: those that involved what usually happens (children are usually loved by their parents); those that were highly likely (a person who is healthy today will be alive tomorrow); and those which in nothing worked against their probability (a household theft was committed by some resident of the household). These sorts of premises are suitable for use in rhetoric because they are statements about the probable conduct of human beings." (pg. 121).
Human behavior is crazy to me and this reading really started making my mind turn.
However, what I found really cool this time was all the crazy reasoning in rhetoric. I am still honestly really amazed all the detail and characteristics behind rhetoric. There is just so much to think about. I really, really enjoyed Quintilian's definition of rhetoric and argument. On page 120 of ARCS book, it stated this. "Quintilian defined arguments in rhetoric and logic as methods 'of proving what is not certain by means of what is certain.' Thus, such arguments enable 'one thing to be inferred from another,'; they also confirm 'facts which are uncertain by reference to facts which are certain.' Without some way of moving from the certain to the uncertain, Quintilian argued, we'd have no way of proving anything." (pg. 120) I thought this was extremely interesting, because I do believe that he is absolutely right. It later states in the following paragraphs this: "The reason for the relative certainty of statements about probable human action is that human behavior in general is predictable to some extent." (pg. 120) This in my mind also struck a cord and made me start thinking crazily about what this means.
I started thinking about whenever I would have discussions (to put it nicely) with my family when I lived back home. It was always the same routine, my brother would want to do something, my dad would agree because he has always hated being the bad guy and my mom would do the whole mom thing and say it wasn't safe (which majority of the time, she was right). By the time I was in college and would come home during break for the holiday's, this stuff was pretty predictable and it always played out the same (I was the bystander about 90% of the time). But after reading about this, it hit me. In hindsight, there behavior is always going to be predictable. If I pointed it out, I bet they would see it too, so it probably isn't a mystery, but it is really interesting how human behavior basically throws itself onto a hamster wheel and will keep going.
Don't get me wrong, I love my family and they are all amazing people, but human behavior is one of the most predictable things. It all becomes habit, which I believe is sort of what Quintilian was saying. The three premises stated at the end of the section perfectly sum up what I was trying to say. "Quintilian regarded three sorts of statements as probable: those that involved what usually happens (children are usually loved by their parents); those that were highly likely (a person who is healthy today will be alive tomorrow); and those which in nothing worked against their probability (a household theft was committed by some resident of the household). These sorts of premises are suitable for use in rhetoric because they are statements about the probable conduct of human beings." (pg. 121).
Human behavior is crazy to me and this reading really started making my mind turn.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Response to readings for Sept. 11th
After reading for Thursday, I decided to focus more on Aristotle's view on rhetoric and there were a few specific things that really stuck out to me. One being on page 180 of our giant, brick of a text book, Aristotle stated this: "In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital interests." At first, I really needed to think about that. I kept wondering well isn't someone who is in politics trying to talk for everyone in society and make the best overall decision for the citizens of those states? But then I thought, well politicians have the art of Rhetoric down to a T. Rhetorics is what they do. They persuade and manipulate to get what they want. (Not saying that's what rhetorics is, but its what politicians are). The politics that take place in the US are more or less, not the best. I fear that politicians are in it just for what Aristotle said, to get what they want for their own interests. If a politician has never experienced something dramatic, they may not fight for it as much as someone who has. In this, I am saying, like what we have discussed before in class, if it benefits the rhetoric's side, there are far more willing to fight for it.
Another very interesting thing I say on page 182 was the three means of effecting persuasion. "The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions- - that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited." I would agree with this. To win over and persuade someone, it is essential to understand their side of things. If you don't understand the emotion behind it all, the personal connection will be lacking, giving the sense that you don't get how they feel. I especially like reason 2. The human character has so many senses behind it, there are various forms of human kindness, generosity, and humility that it can go on for ages.
One last thing that stood out to me was on page 194. The entire first column produces the opposites of every last thing you can think of and produce a goods reason for why the opposite is a better way to go. This column stood out to me, because it made me really think. I know this reading is deep, and to be honest, a lot of it is hard to process, however, it did stick with me. My favorite part was earlier in the column and it states, "Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness: for positive goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be." I believe what it is trying to interpret that regardless of the situation, the good and bad will always be there. And it's better to have it than to not have it at all. If we did not have it, we may never know what good and bad are and never be able to interpret the difference between the two.
Another very interesting thing I say on page 182 was the three means of effecting persuasion. "The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions- - that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited." I would agree with this. To win over and persuade someone, it is essential to understand their side of things. If you don't understand the emotion behind it all, the personal connection will be lacking, giving the sense that you don't get how they feel. I especially like reason 2. The human character has so many senses behind it, there are various forms of human kindness, generosity, and humility that it can go on for ages.
One last thing that stood out to me was on page 194. The entire first column produces the opposites of every last thing you can think of and produce a goods reason for why the opposite is a better way to go. This column stood out to me, because it made me really think. I know this reading is deep, and to be honest, a lot of it is hard to process, however, it did stick with me. My favorite part was earlier in the column and it states, "Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness: for positive goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be." I believe what it is trying to interpret that regardless of the situation, the good and bad will always be there. And it's better to have it than to not have it at all. If we did not have it, we may never know what good and bad are and never be able to interpret the difference between the two.
Monday, September 8, 2014
Readings for Sept. 9th
Cicero and Quintilian's Four Questions is a great basis to a Rhetorician's argument. I feel as though using a guided, step by step process is an efficient way to cover an argument and hit all the key points. On page 64, Cicero suggests that readers and writer's use these questions and answer them in order, which I couldn't agree more. The advantages according to Cicero are: "the process of working through questions of conjecture, definition, and quality, in order, will help rhetors to find the points from which they must begin the argument - the point where they disagree." Using this four step is extremely helpful due to the ways it can also break down into more sub-like categories. By asking more detailed questions in each category gives better evidence and more of a backup to a fight.
Using these stases are still useful for beating a path through the thicket of issues that often surround a controversy. By doing these things, a rheotoric can successfully prove an argument using valid points and make their opponent look weak.
I thought the sample that used to show how to correctly use the four stases about abortion was a very interesting choice. It is very obvious that this has been a topic of discussion for years around the United States. However, what is the right choice and what should we do legally for abortion? Personally, I am a pro choice type of person. Personally, after watching many people I have known through school and watching them have kids while they are still kids themselves, scares me. I don't think its fair that children are born into a world when their parents aren't even ready. However, there are boundaries that should be followed. If a girl gets raped and becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby, I believe it is absolutely exceptable to have an abortion. If there are young kids that are having sex and not using and/or proper protection, and become pregnant, I believe that an abortion is not the right answer, however is it fair to bring a child into a world with young, dumb parents? After debating with myself, I can see why abortion is still an issue in the states. I don't believe there is a right answer to abortion due to all the situations that can occur. The sample brings up many other questions as well, but I believe that a ten page paper could be written about this as well... but that is for another time. :)
Using these stases are still useful for beating a path through the thicket of issues that often surround a controversy. By doing these things, a rheotoric can successfully prove an argument using valid points and make their opponent look weak.
I thought the sample that used to show how to correctly use the four stases about abortion was a very interesting choice. It is very obvious that this has been a topic of discussion for years around the United States. However, what is the right choice and what should we do legally for abortion? Personally, I am a pro choice type of person. Personally, after watching many people I have known through school and watching them have kids while they are still kids themselves, scares me. I don't think its fair that children are born into a world when their parents aren't even ready. However, there are boundaries that should be followed. If a girl gets raped and becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby, I believe it is absolutely exceptable to have an abortion. If there are young kids that are having sex and not using and/or proper protection, and become pregnant, I believe that an abortion is not the right answer, however is it fair to bring a child into a world with young, dumb parents? After debating with myself, I can see why abortion is still an issue in the states. I don't believe there is a right answer to abortion due to all the situations that can occur. The sample brings up many other questions as well, but I believe that a ten page paper could be written about this as well... but that is for another time. :)
Monday, September 1, 2014
Readings for Tuesday, Sept. 2nd
After completing the readings for Tuesday, the most interesting detail that stuck with me the most was in our book ARCS about karios. When debating over a certain topic, it never really struck me until after that reading is that sometimes, there may be a more opportune moment. The sentence, "Karios is not about duration, but rather about a certain kind or quality of time, a period during which opportunities appear to those who are prepared to take advantage of them," (ARCS, pg. 38) really just struck a light in my head. It really does make sense. There is always a time for opportunity and I believe that may separate the great from the weak. The patience behind waiting to seize a moment of power can unravel your opponent. The book's example of Wall Street was a perfect example because it put Karios into a relatable perspective for me at least, because there is always a better time to sell than to buy. When it comes to rhetoric, there is always a better, more auspicious time to argue a point.
Another prominent point was made on page 41 of ARCS. It said: "Karios also points to the situatedness of arguments in time and place, and an arguments suitability depends on the particulars of a given rhetorical situation. The particulars of a rhetorical situation includes the rhetor, of course: her opinions and beliefs, her past experiences, as well as her position on an issue at the time she composes a discourse about it. But the rhetorical situation also includes the opinions and beliefs of her audience at that time and in that place, as well as the history of the issue within the communities with which they identify." This paragraph was also very powerful and also extremely truthful in my eyes. Along with the ideal time, also comes along with the idea that every argument needs to have the correct characteristics to create the most compelling argument. If a rhetor is arguing a point to an audience with a biased personality and no desire to change their minds, the rhetor may not have a winning chance. However, don't get me wrong, with valid points, factual information and a touching personal experience that drags out the emotion from the audience, the rhetor could win, however, it does dwindle back down to the situation.
During chapter two of ARCS, gun control was touched on. It is obviously known that this has been an issue in the US for years. The examples given in the book are just a few of many occurrences that we have seen in the past few decades. After every attack, more and more questions come up about gun control and what we can do about it. I am every bit in favor of being in control of guns and who has them, however one question that I will always have is this: If people didn't have control of guns, what would be next? I believe that there is a balance to most everything, so why doesn't the government find the balance on this? If not guns, then what would other people find to kill others? It's not the guns we should be worried about, it's the people who have them that should be the bigger concern.
Another prominent point was made on page 41 of ARCS. It said: "Karios also points to the situatedness of arguments in time and place, and an arguments suitability depends on the particulars of a given rhetorical situation. The particulars of a rhetorical situation includes the rhetor, of course: her opinions and beliefs, her past experiences, as well as her position on an issue at the time she composes a discourse about it. But the rhetorical situation also includes the opinions and beliefs of her audience at that time and in that place, as well as the history of the issue within the communities with which they identify." This paragraph was also very powerful and also extremely truthful in my eyes. Along with the ideal time, also comes along with the idea that every argument needs to have the correct characteristics to create the most compelling argument. If a rhetor is arguing a point to an audience with a biased personality and no desire to change their minds, the rhetor may not have a winning chance. However, don't get me wrong, with valid points, factual information and a touching personal experience that drags out the emotion from the audience, the rhetor could win, however, it does dwindle back down to the situation.
During chapter two of ARCS, gun control was touched on. It is obviously known that this has been an issue in the US for years. The examples given in the book are just a few of many occurrences that we have seen in the past few decades. After every attack, more and more questions come up about gun control and what we can do about it. I am every bit in favor of being in control of guns and who has them, however one question that I will always have is this: If people didn't have control of guns, what would be next? I believe that there is a balance to most everything, so why doesn't the government find the balance on this? If not guns, then what would other people find to kill others? It's not the guns we should be worried about, it's the people who have them that should be the bigger concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)