One of the more interesting ideas that I came across in tonight’s reading was that (according to Herrick) “Aristotle held that one of the three artistic proofs–logos, pathos, and ethos–this last one, ethos, was potentially the most persuasive.” (Herrick, 81) I say that it’s an interesting idea, because my initial reaction was one of disbelief. I thought that surely logos was the most persuasive part of rhetoric; the actual argument itself. Surely a rational, logical, human being would respond to a speakers words and ideas, not who they were as a person. Then I had to laugh, because I am ridiculously guilty of letting ethos steer my thinking. For example, if someone I don’t care for starts to speak in class, I’ll IMMEDIATELY tune them out, and assume what they said was rubbish. The same (to an extent) goes for political candidates. I’ll barely listen when the candidate I’ve chosen to disagree with speaks, but when MY candidate is speaking, I’ll drink in every word and believe it as gospel truth. Well, maybe I’m not that extreme. The point is, I learned something valuable about rhetoric and human nature tonight; that as logical as you’d hope people are, it’s just not the case.