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.