Pathos

Pathetic Proofs

As we now have a deeper understanding of the functions and purpose of ethos and logos, the concept of pathos is necessary to decompose, not only because of its relevancy within the circle of rhetoric, but also because of its relevancy within any argument.  The “agency of words” is best implemented through the understanding of the intrinsic proofs, and such rhetorical depositions are successful through the use of emotions.  As with opinions, people tend to deduce that emotions are a means of property to an individual, and that they define who that person is, and even further what their idealogical stances are; within specific  communities that share similar emotions such feelings are also often heightened and thus propagated through pathetic means.  

People cannot think without their emotions, they cannot form opinions, nor can they understand arguments and take sides, as the text argues.  However, it also claims that understanding the emotional state of the audience in key in successfully connecting with the audience; but I would also argue that the kairos must be at the forefront of any rhetorical argument because predicting how an audience will interpret and argument and emotionally connect and involve themselves in said argument is vital.  Furthermore, I would aim to disagree with the claim that severe states of mind such as anger do not occur without reason.  This argument can only be made with the assumption that the audience of a rhetor is of the same academic caliber, one that has no lack of mental capacity, one that is in essence on the same playing field as the rhetor himself.  When you think of political instances nowadays, when politicians make claims that not all audiences can understand, for example those who do not have much education, or even those will learning/mental disabilities, how do politicians make those arguments for such a wide audience, for one with unspecified parameters? 

Boethius, Post #6

Boethius’s mentality is much like his predecessors, focusing on the good of a man, and exploring commonplaces in order to divulge arguments and sustain them; however, he also was enriched by his religious background of Roman Catholicism, entreating into the philosophies of organized religion as opposed to the polytheistic mythology of the classic rhetoricians.  His concentration of Aristotle and Cicero was by means of imitation in order to deal with contemporary questions of his time, much like what we are doing in class with him, with the ancients, with all those whom which we study.  Understanding how we as students can learn from past rhetorician’s tactics, and implore their knowledge of rhetoric will only allow us the space to develop arguments, similar to how it allowed the opportunity for Boethius.

He claims that the structure of rhetoric is regarded better as the conjoining of the whole as opposed to its individual parts; yet within in each discipline there need be separate “species of rhetoric” as he says, each with their own principles and oratorical avenues. Regardless of the specifications, each discipline must contain the “five parts: inventions, disposition, style, memory, and delivery,” and each serves to complete the other, the whole arguments cannot be truly successful without each part.  The entire organism of rhetoric lives off of the capacity for the orator, or moreover, the rhetor to conceptually collaborate each part.  Not only must the rhetor be of good character and speak well but he must also possess the quality to synthesize each component into one unified argument, where each aspect is developed, conjoined, and implemented—together.

What is Ethos Really?

In my experience ethos has always been synonyms with credibility, the reliability of the author of an argument, how well you can believe what someone is saying based on the facts and credibility they can provide; however, when comparing that to the ancient concept of ethos, it is rather less about what you say than how you say it.  Ethos represented character far beyond an individual's personal life--in the book they use the example of the politician’s personal life, how the public is often concerned with their romantic upheavals rather than their political stances and beliefs, at least that’s what gets the most attention most of the time. 

Tying in kairos with the ability to properly implement ethos is vital in achieving as successful argument, because as many rhetoricians argued, a bad man cannot make a good argument, it takes a good man to have a good argument.  Understanding the audience is something that politician unknowingly struggle with today; they assume that if they are attempting to make good in the world then they will be good people, but it is reversed, a good man makes those kinds of decisions and achieves those kind of results.   An individual’s character means everything in a community of people, and it ought to mean everything to himself.

A proof did not always come in the form of concrete fact to the ancients; the ethical proofs that can be provided in order to assist an argument, those that are invented and situated or found.  At times an observation that is discovered can carry more weight than those situated proofs.  Having a good attitude and an appearance of good intention are not the means by which a community determines a rhetor’s integrity, but rather the practice of only speaking well and others knowing that they only speak well. 

Post #5

Post #5

When implementing rhetorical devices it is important to keep in mind the organizational methods behind the skill.  Aristotle lectured that the proofs to successfully form and present an argument were what appears to fall into a scientific method.  Quintilian claimed that there were four premises that circulated around the senses, general agreement, a child's responsibility to their parents, and things that exist in law or custom. Cicero like many conintued to believe that the ability to correctly present an argument was a representation of the highest class of manhood.  The culmination of these rhetoricians comprise much of the virtue we have lost in rhetoric and not only that but in our personal lives; these men appear to be concerned with the wholistic virtue of a man, rather than his accomplishment in the art and science of rhetoric.  

Post #4

Post #4 ARCS and RT 9.11.14

It is interesting how the text admonishes us from the fact that “thorough examination of an issue has been known to cause rhetors to change their minds,” based on conjunctures, degrees, and possibility.  And this begs the question as to what is good and what is bad in society, and how any society can really determine how those are judged and how they can be allocated out with opinions.  We understand now that virtue played a large role in not only accuracy of a rhetor’s argument, but also in his potential and actual success with his argument. 

            When examining how Aristotle approached his argument in Phaedrus, how dignity must be a factor in any argument, a trait that every rhetorician must possess it is curious how we as a society have gone so far away from that foundational concept.  We tend to believe that lying, cheating, and misleading (especially in politics) will get us what we want, and it will get us where we want.  Often we creating an argument, even at times in an academic setting, people will exaggerate their claims, and fail to show respect to their counterpart.  People can get hasty, forget their composure and not conduct themselves in an appropriate way.  Perhaps that is evidence of our lack of understanding of rhetoric—most of us have heard of ethos, pathos, and logos, we get that there is a system, a method to creating an argument, but I do not believe that most of us know why.  In our discovery of Aristotle and the other classic rhetors we keep going back their principles, their virtues.  The common phrase, “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it,” might be an appropriate contemporary correlation—that dignity and honesty must come through in any argument, but they must always been an honest intention, not a façade to woe an audience. 

Post #3/Class Recap

In class we discussion the issue of abortion which was brought up, and how the arguments lie on a spectrum, it is not an issue that only has two sides--as most issues never do.  I wonder where on the spectrum the ancient rhetors would lie, how Plato would form his argument, what questions he would ask and how well he would inform himself of the opposing positions.  Plato would probably agree with our discussion today, that there are several arguments, as opposed to there only ever being a right and a wrong, a left, or a right.  The issue of abortion is also one that requires a lot of sensitivity, one with virtue.  The relativity of the virtue would be far more important to Plato, and with abortion being such a sensitive issue, one that combat people's morals, and basic principles of living demands a certain level of virtue.  Presenting an argument must not only have the stases, but it also must involve a high level of virtue and honor; at least Plato might argue.

Post #3 Asking Questions

Post #3
Chapter 3
Achieving Stasis by Asking the Right Questions


In this reading, I have started to grasp how this text analyzes classical rhetoric, and I appreciate the contemporary examples that are provided, as it is challenging at times to understand an ancient concept, especially one that might not even have a directly translated word in English. 


By analyzing the types of questions that we ask when forming an argument, I think that often people overlook the actual process of doing so, they summarize their argument with data, facts and figures, and do not always ask the simple questions--which is what I appreciate about how the text broke up the questions and clearly defined what they are and their purpose. All aspects of an argument must be taken into account, if they are not, then the argument is not complete, and then one could argue that it is a pointless endeavor, it cannot succeed properly without all components. 


Abortion is such a difficult topic to talk about today in society, people feel so strongly either way, and the issue is a prime example of how people take opinions as personal reflections of themselves, and then society assigns them a certain group: pro-life or pro-choice; which abortion there really is no in-between.  I appreciated how the questions that needed to be asked for each argument were broken down and were specifically asked, this made it quite easy to understand the purpose of each theoretical and practical question, as well as expanding on each. In relating this to our recent task of finding a speech for our upcoming assignment, the practice of relating the ancient rhetoric to our new issues is a rather viable exercise, one that will only help to better my understanding of the purpose of rhetoric, and even further reflecting on how it applies to my daily speech, interactions, and arguments. 

Blog Post #2 Follow Up

Following up from class today, our discussion on kairos presented an interesting thought about how although the English language does not have a direct translation for kairos, it is something that we are  perhaps naturally inclined to do--to find when there is an opportunity for an argument, when not only the timing is right, but also when when audience is appropriate.  

I found an interesting parallel between the homosexual accounts of classic Greek students and their teachers, and how there seemed to be a surplus of sexual importance in rhetoric and overall education.  In the past there has been little to no opportunity for homosexual relationships to be "social accepted"; perhaps there was not the proper audience for people to accept or agree with homosexual rights (which were not the case or argument in ancient times, rather merely the social normalcy of the action) and as time has progressed--even more recently within the past year the audience has been more appropriate for an acceptance of homosexual relations, there now has been the kairos.  

Kairos and Sex

Blog Post #2

ARCS Chapter 2

Kairos by definition is a loose interpretation of time, and most active people in society today cannot stand the idea of time loosely interpreted; everyone has a schedule, a due date, a specific time for which an event most definitely has to happen, or else there might be consequences.  The Greeks used chronos to describe exact instances of time, things that were linear, like our idea of a clock, and they also used kairos to describe a quality of time rather than a length.  Kairos was about how the context, the situation, and the events going on in culture can all affect an argument.  As people change so does the availability of an argument. 

In a rhetorical argument ethos, pathos, and logos are implemented in order to form the proof for which the argument can be properly put forth and then argued.  Moreover, within the history or rhetoric there have been many instances of when the principles of rhetoric were not always the same from one master to another—for example with Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. 

Take the issue of homosexuality and look at it through the lens of ancient education, not only rhetorical education, but education for males in general.  It was commonplace for men to partake in homosexual activities and as such they were not frowned upon by society because they were themselves the members of society.  Education was everything and these educated men were involved in homosexuality; therefore, there was no room for harassment or embarrassment from society—they were the society, those whom matter anyways.  Where as today, consider how in recent years have homosexuals only begun to obtain rights and recognition, and the essence of homosexuality is completely removed from the realms of education and citizenship.  Because of kairos, homosexuality during the time of the ancients Greeks was accepted because it was arguably a factor of a male’s education, rather than a “life style”, but in our most recent history homosexuals have not been given the right circumstances to help their argument, the quality of the timing has not been right for the rest of the world to question its legitimacy.   

Gorgias discussed homosexuality and sexual tensions as the very basis for which education was desired, people even described his teachings as “sexual pleasures”.  Gorgias used his words a weapon, even a tool as powerful as magic and drugs and this power came from his ability to reason and thus defend those who could not speak or know how to themselves, like women.  The anonymous author of the Dissoi Logoi, touched on how all comparisons in life, everything that is opposite should all be discussed and those most important of course involved “eating and drinking and sexual intercourse”.  The prevalence of sex in ancient culture was something so much more commonplace and the situational timing allowed for such an acceptance.  In the recent era, sex has been more of an aspect of privacy: what is not discussed or appropriate in common culture, although one might argue that it has resurged and has always remained at the forefront of modern culture. 

Changes in Rhetoric--Do People Even Know? 

Blog Post #1

Chapter 1 ARCS

This chapter is quite an interesting introduction on how the history of rhetoric explains peoples’ misconceptions about the topic today, and how our contemporary world disagrees with basic principles of rhetoric that its founders created.  I find it intriguing, the notion of how a person’s credibility and even citizenship in a community was determined by their ability to communicate, and it had little to do with their family heritage and finances, because throughout most of history that has not been the case.

In the comparisons between ancient and contemporary rhetoric there were changes noted about how people view certain components of rhetoric, such as extrinsic and intrinsic proofs.  Facts were not trustworthy in ancient times; people’s personal accounts and experiences gave them more credibility than the information from another person’s experiences.  The difference between atechnoi and entechnoi give way to the contemporary view (and opposing one at that to ancient times) about how interpretations can be viewed through different networks, and those networks allow for the context of the argument itself.  Today, people do not allow for personal experience to always be a credible source, they look for obscure facts and numbers to back up their arguments, where ancient rhetors might argue that the argument of an individual who has not experienced what they are arguing for is null and void and cannot thus follow the method of the rhetorical proofs. 

The view of having an opinion is another major change that has occurred within contemporary rhetoric—people are personalized to their views, and those views become an extension of their identity; where ancient rhetors believed that opinions could not be owned by individuals and could easily be changed should another present an argument that is viably compelling.  Although things in the world of communication (really everything) are constantly changing and adapting to the current situations, it might be useful for people to really take a look at the foundations of rhetoric, examine what was established, what it ought to be and evaluate whether or not their present use of the rhetoric as a means of communication and argument is utilized, accurately represented, and practiced.