Week of September 22 Thursday Post

The reading on passionate appeal was interesting, at least the first four pages that I read. Out of all of Aristotle’s emotional appeals I believe pathos is the most essential to the three. I agree with the idea in the reading that stated, “we can’t think without emotions.” Eventually every rhetorician is bound to let their emotions override their mind and argue what true feelings he or she has on a subject, and to some extent it is a positive reaction, although it can also be a reaction that questions one’s appeal. In the case of arguing with a single individual revealing your emotions can help one demonstrate her or his point to the opposition. Emotions demonstrate a passion that denotes a rhetors opinion on a topic and how strong they feel about it. If a rhetor is able to successfully utilize emotion to appeal to his or her audience then the audience relatively envisions a passionate rhetor that truly believes in what she or he is arguing.

            On the other hand, letting your emotions get the best of you can also have dire consequences when trying to persuade your audience. I believe it is appropriate to allow more emotions during private conversations than with public speaking. Politicians normally keep their cool whenever they address an audience. At least I do not see them yelling at their audience or demonstrate an extreme level of emotion during their speeches. I believe the passage is correct when proclaiming, “the rhetor’s and the audience’s dispositions each shape the other.” If the audience is not ‘feeling’ what the rhetor is orating they usually let her or him know through the questions that are asked or by mere interruption. Like the quote states, I am sure the audience effects the rhetor’s emotions and the rhetor effects the audience’s emotions. It is for this reason I believe individuals like politicians speak broadly when addressing their audience. Furthermore, they also seem to answer questions and remarks by swaying away from the actual question that was asked. I believe this is a strategy that allows them to control their oration in a manner that allows them to seem understanding, yet still allows them to get their point across.

Week of September 22 Tuesday Post

Having all these rhetoricians talk about rhetoric is starting to get repetitive. They all seem to be putting their opinion on the same topic, rhetoric, and some opinions match that of others, so in a sense, to me, they are all saying the same thing, that rhetoric is important. After reading Boethius’ section I found that his personal life similarly resembled that of Cicero in the manner he was educated and raised. The passage goes on to detail some of his work.

Like I said before, this rhetoric topic is starting to become a custom topic rhetoricians discuss in their works. One original idea that I agreed with from Boethius’ reading was that “Readers may investigate each of the separate parts of the act and ignore the final product.” This idea primarily reminded me of all the reading we do for this course. As the reader, I analyze and try to comprehend what each rhetor is discussing in their writings, but like Boethius claims I always manage to find a way to understand the individual claims, but manage to miss the greater picture.

In regards to the reader, is it really our fault that we cannot keep up with a writer’s train of thought, especially that of writers likes Boethius, Cicero, and Aristotle. I believe the reader investigates separate parts in a reading to fully understand what the writer is trying to say, however in the mix of this they manage to go to in depth with the understanding that they eventually sway away from the chief point that was trying to be made. Ultimately, I blame the writer for the ignorance of the final product. An author’s writing should be understandable not extremely general like the majority of rhetors write in. With general writing comes the unfortunate reality of having to focus on separate parts of a reading too much that a reader ends up not understanding the final product as a whole.

Week of September 15 Thursday Post

After reading the sixth chapter in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Studies, I now seem to understand ethos a bit more differently after reading the examples of Aristotle and Quintilian. Personally, I find that Aristotle’s ideology contradicts Quintilian’s ideology about ethos. I agree with both of them, and also disagree with their opinions as well.

            Lets begin with Aristotle. It was stated that he was not concerned with the lifestyle of a rhetor, but instead with the “appearance of character” they presented. When I read this idea I became a bit confused. Realistically, how is your character appearance not a display of the lifestyle one lives? Unless a rhetor is purposefully trying to confuse her audience the manner in which she presents herself will be an exemplar of her lifestyle. There is a difference between showing up for a presentation in shorts and a tank top rather than a suit and tie. The latter is more professional than the former. One’s power of persuasion will certainly be affected by their presentation. If one chooses to disregard his character appearance than it will be a proof of his lifestyle. He will be seen as a person who does not take himself seriously, at least in my opinion, and as a result will not be taken seriously or in the manner he wishes.

            After my last post I have come to the conclusion that I am not a fan of Quintilian’s work. Quintilian’s idea of matching skillful rhetoric with a good character allowed him to denote “No person can speak well who is not good.” I know I am not the only one who disagrees with Quintilian’s ideology here. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini are three brilliant rhetors that unfortunately utilized their abilities for evil. Nevertheless, they were extremely successful. In this case, I believe all three men spoke persuasively, and yet neither of them was good. You do not have to be good in order to speak well. In fact, I find it impressing if you are able to speak well and be a villain, and still be able to convince individuals to follow and agree with your ideology.

Week of September 15 Tuesday Post

In the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students Quintilian’s list of four types of premises that can be regarded as certain are listed when generally discussing premise. Although Quintilian regards his four premises as certain, I contrastingly believe that none of which he listed can be argued as certain.

            First, Quintilian denotes that “those that involved things perceived by the senses” can be regarded as certain. If the discussion is in regards to the five senses of smell, taste, sound, touch, and sight then Quintilian could not be more wrong about certainty. Everyone perceives information in different manners. Prior to Quintilian’s four premises, the argument is made that “human behavior in general is predictable to some extent,” again I say no, simply because there is no such thing as general human behavior. If a person is relieved of one or two senses then they perceive information stronger through their remaining senses. Now, does this impair her or him or improve their perception? Perception cannot be perceived as a certainty because perception is extremely diverse.

            Quintilian continues by stating “those that involved things about which there is general agreement” can also be regarded as certain. Again, regardless of the topic, there is always going to be more than one side to an argument. Quintilian uses a child’s duty to love his or her parent as an example, but what if her or his parents are abusing this specific child. It may be a little difficult for this child to necessarily love his or her parents.

            Next, Quintilian believes “those that involved things that exist in law or in custom” are also certain. Sure Quintilian can argue the custom of punishing criminals, however you can also argue against punishment. Why can’t rehabilitation or retribution be solutions? Furthermore, law is a general essence that can be interpreted in numerous ways. When it comes to law there is always argument on what punishment should be look like for a certain crime, if any.

            On the other hand, I will agree with Quintilian on his final certainty of “those that are admitted by either party to the argument.” When the opposition rightfully admits being wrong or in favor of your argument then you have won the argument. It does not matter if you are generally right or wrong, so long as you persuade your opponent to favor or disbelieve their argument.  

Week of Sep 8 Ch 4 & Aristotle response

Topics and commonplaces were discussed in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. In this book there is a quote that I connected to Aristotle’s Book I from Rhetoric in The Rhetorical Tradition. “Rhetoricians need to be skilled at tracking down suitable proofs.” The page goes on to list the three common topics of Aristotle. Now from my understanding, Aristotle’s belief is that conjecture is not truly a fact, for which the English language translates the Greek term ‘conjecture’ from, but a mere educated guess of what has happened or what will happen. I believe this is why Rhetoricians need to be able to track down their own truth, because nothing is certain. Through rhetoric anything can be proven a false or a conjecture. The Rhetoric passage supports my hypothesis when the case of judging is discussed in the first few pages of the reading. “All men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and attack others.” In my opinion, this quote can summarize the goal in a courtroom, to persuade the judge and jury in your favor. If “prejudice, pity, anger,” and other emotions have nothing to do with the facts of a case then why does it ultimately render a decision, because of Kairos. Decisions in the courtroom are “given at short notice,” and in that short notice it is not the essential facts that matter, but the art of persuasion, rhetoric, that determines the resolution. Self-interest and personal feelings will effect a judge’s decision, so should a judge really be allowed to determine a solution, or should they simply justify Aristotle’s first common topic of “weather a thing has (or has not) occurred or will (or will not) occur?