Month: October 2016

For my writing project I want to focus on Aristotle who is one of the major figures in Rhetoric. We have learned so much about him and his beliefs on Rhetoric but I believe that we have just scratched the surface. We have learned his definition of rhetoric and that is emphasizes persuasion using the three rhetorical appeals, Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Ethos focuses on the speaker, using trust to show the audience their character and integrity. Reputation, Character and Credibility will impact how your audience will judge you. Pathos triggers senses and feelings, appeals to their listener’s emotions. These are your values, goals, interests and beliefs. Logos focuses on the argument using both logic and explanation, evidence and reason. These were the three elements Aristotle contributed to the argument that rhetoric is a techne. Aristotle divides oratory into three categories, Rhetorical settings. Deliberative, Epideictic, and Forensic/Judicial. He truly believed that rhetoric is something you can look at and interpret it in so many ways. It is something beautiful and unique. Maybe Aristotle wanted to believe in something bigger. He wanted for us to be a part of something that we can all connect to on a different level. Maybe Aristotle considered everyone as artists in rhetoric. Making it into something that fits me as an individual. As long as you use the specific tools to give you a concrete start and works as a guideline, you can make it anything you want it to be. Just like creating a painting. In oder for you to do that you need specific tools. A canvas, paint, paint brushes and your imagination. I think that is the way Aristotle envisioned Rhetoric. I think Aristotle is worth pursuing especially for the students of rhetoric because is it something we use on a daily basis. You can look at the recent presidential debates. Is persuasion before truth? Has Aristotle pushed us away from the truth within rhetoric by influencing us to create something we believe is right? There are so many great things that came from Aristotle’s views and beliefs, but maybe they have made a negative impact on us today. With further research about Aristotle it will give us a better understanding as to why he wanted rhetoric to be what he thought it is and what he envisioned it to be.

Two of the many Classical figures that influenced and shaped the meaning of Rhetoric was Plato and Aristotle. In the Classical period there was a lot differences between them that emerged from their ideas about Rhetoric. Plato believed only a select few were born with arete, which is a behavior showing high moral standards, virtue. The Sophists, who were paid teachers who traveled, believed they could teach arete to anyone. Plato argued Rhetoric was a skill (a knack). He feared conviction without knowledge. The Sophists argued that Rhetoric was a techne. A “true art”, the systematic study of art, science, or any discipline. Aristotle believed that Rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. Dialectic rhetoric was conviction with knowledge. It is rigorous questioning and arguing with a small audience. There were three Rhetorical Appeals that he thought was necessary in a speech in order to persuade an audience. Ethos focuses on the rhetor’s character and credibility. Pathos is the emotion, getting people in the right mind to make a decision or to view something a certain way. Logos is the main argument and the reasoning behind it. He contributes these 3 elements to the argument that Rhetoric is a techne. Aristotle divides oratory into three categories called Rhetorical Settings. Deliberative involves action and decisions, action persuasion for the future. Epideictic is ceremonial, to praise or to blame an individual based on past decisions. Forensic/Judicial deals with the past and the future (deciding issues of justice). Kairos it the opportune or situation that shapes the rhetor’s choices regarding line of reasoning, rhetorical appeal. I really never thought about rhetoric in other way other than writing or words on paper. I never thought of it as an art and how it has to power to persuade. I have learned that rhetoric is and can be in anything you do. Well it depends what your individual opinion of rhetoric is of course. Some connections I have seen are for example in the speech George Bush gave regarding 9/11. He used Kairos and gave the  speech at the time he did. He knew his audience and used that to his advantage in that time of war. His tone of voice was calm and reassuring even through a time of panic. Bush used Pathos all throughout his speech letting his audience know they are not alone and we will get through this together, as one. He used rhetoric all throughout his speech. As we move further along in the class, I would like to know more about Rhetoric shaping education in Rome. I would like to know how the ideas of rhetoric were used throughout Rome.

Aristotle claims that truth does not always persuade. I think he means that truth is a small component of persuasion. In Aristotle’s Rhetoric underlies the three technical means of persuasion, Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Ethos focuses on the speaker, using trust to show the audience their character and integrity. Reputation, Character and Credibility will impact how your audience will judge you.If you want your audience to believe you, you first have to show them that you believe yourself. Pathos triggers senses and feelings, appeals to their listeners emotions. These are your values, goals, interests and beliefs. Logos focuses on the argument using both logic and explanation, evidence and reason. I think Aristotle means that the truth might not always be appealing to the audience. Which means the truth might not always have the power to influence them. In class today we looked at a paper written by a 43 year old man asking a College Committee to make an exception for him. He talked about his achievements and how he does not need this algebra course. He even provided statements of people he has spoken with to help make his case. The truth is he didn’t need that course in order to become a lawyer but it was a standard for everyone. The truth about him not needing the course didn’t persuade the committee. Being able to relate to values or beliefs of the speaker is so appealing to us as an audience. We all just want to feel understood and that someone else can relate. Words and speech has the power to do that. It does not necessarily have to be the truth. Take social media and advertising for example. They often use famous people to advertise products. Even though the star might not agree with the product, believe it works or even uses it, they influence the audience to buy the product. They make the viewers believe it works. The same goes for weight loss supplements. They show before and after pictures to make you believe it worked for them, it can work for you. Because the advertisement might be so appealing to us and relatable, we do not care about the truth behind it all. You can take something in your everyday life and compare it to Aristotles claim about truth and persuasion. Take alcohol for example. We know the truth about alcohol. We know all the negative effects, but does that persuade us to make the right decision and not drink? Maybe, but in the end we decide as our own person the choices we want to make.