Pathetic Proofs: Passionate Appeals

The first thing I found interesting while reading chapter 7 of Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students was that the chapter title was called “pathetic proof: passionate appeals”. By this does the book mean that appeals of emotion are actually pathetic?

Reading further into the chapter it was explained that ancient rhetor’s such as Aristotle and Cicero described pathos as the appeal to human emotion, having to do with experience, suffering and emotions. Aristotle and Cicero discussed a variety of emotions possible for the use of a rhetorical argument; for example love/hate or fear/confidence. What I found intriguing was that ancient rhetor’s believed emotions must be distinguished from pleasure, pain and values. But aren’t these three things the foundation for emotions? It was also explained that ancient rhetor’s treated emotion as a way of “knowing”, associating them with the intellectual process or a means of reasoning. In regards I suppose I have to agree more with modern rhetor’s that being too emotional, especially in an argument can make a person seem irrational not passionate.

The useful tactics of pathos described in the chapter was enargeia, honorific language and pejorative language. Enargeia is a rhetorical device used when the audience is uninterested in what the rhetor is saying. It is used by the rhetor to make a picture of an event to the audience so vividly that the audience can actually picture what is being said. Honorific language is treating people or things with respect; while pejorative language is treating people or things with disparages or downplaying (belittling). Both forms of language are meant to convey a value judgment on the person or thing. I found these rhetorical devises manipulating. They seemed to suggest to the rhetor to act and have the emotion that will appear best to the audience, which perhaps is what rhetoric is somewhat about. This chapter made me question the ethicalness of rhetoric’s and how much of it is truth and how much is acting.

Boethius

The Rhetorical Tradition on Boethius begins by giving a brief description of Boethius life; making sure to highlight on his interest in Aristotle and Cicero’s work. The description mentions the Boethius was aware of the danger of losing Greco-Roman culture and tried to preserve what he could. Unfortunately, Boethius was unable to fully translate the work of Plato and Aristotle into Latin before his death. Knowing that Boethius was particularly interested in Aristotle’s work I couldn’t help but notice how he repeated some of Aristotle’s main ideas on rhetoric. For instance, in his An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, Boethius states that rhetoric can be three types of argument: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Similarly Aristotle said there were three types of speech: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Another idea that Boethius mentioned of Aristotle’s was that rhetoric had five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory and delivery. It cannot be said that Boethius was trying to pass Aristotle’s ideas as his own or if in his effort to preserve ancient rhetoric he simply found it necessary to have these ideas in his work.

Later however, Boethius steers slightly away from Aristotle’s ideas and begins to explain his own. Boethius writes about the “oration” referring to it as a civil nature. He explains that the oration has six parts: the introduction, the argument, the participation, the proof, the refutation, and the peroration. Boethius six parts of rhetoric is similar to ancient rhetoric’s ideas but because the information was new to him and many others at his time it is possible that he found the six parts of rhetoric theory to be a revelation and something new to contribute. Boethius concludes An Overview of the Structures of Rhetoric by stating that it is the goal of the orator (the rhetor) to teach and move, to speak well, and to ultimately persuade the audience.

Tricks of Persuasion

Chapter six of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students centered on ethical proofs and there usefulness to rhetors. Reading through the chapter I found it interesting that way verb tense, word size, grammar and punctuation could be used to help a rhetor prove their point in an argument.

 In the book verb tense was the most notably useful form of persuasion in regards to ethical proofs. The different types of verb tense discussed in the book were past, present and active. I found it interesting but couldn’t help but agree that present tense verb tense makes the listener feel more involved, or intimate, while past verb tense distances the listener from the rhetor and makes them feel more of an observer to the situation.

The effectiveness of word size was also explained in this chapter. Particularly for the American culture the size and amount of syllables in a person speech can either make the person seem more or less intelligent. Generally the more syllables of the word the more educated the person seems. I found this interesting, because I myself will use larger words when I want to appear smarter, whether in a conversation or an essay.

The third persuasion technique that was explained was grammar. The technique of grammar was broken into three types of persons: first, second and third. First and second person grammar was explained to usually be used in speeches or conversations of small groups where the conversations are more intimate. While third person grammar is used when the rhetor wants to establish authority, which then puts a distance between the rhetor and his or her audience.

The final ethical influence technique I found interesting was the use of punctuation. A more subtle technique that is limited to writing, but none the less useful. Examples such as dashes, parentheses, exclamation points, quotations, and underlining/bolding/capitalization were given. Dashes can mean breathlessness or hurry; while parentheses can be used to decrease distance. Exclamation points can be used to show strong emotion and quotations can be used for emphasis. Underlining/bolding/capitalization in writing can be used by a rhetor to show importance on a specific sentence, point or word.

All of these techniques of persuasion are used daily whether people realize it or not. After reading this chapter I only came to this realization. It personally now makes me more aware of how I speak and write, especially when I am trying to prove a point.

Logical Proofs/Rhetorical Views of Cicero and Quintilian

The first part of the writing in Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students focuses on the idea of logical proofs, “logos”, particularly Aristotle’s classification of them. Aristotle breaks logical proofs into four categories: scientific demonstration, dialectic, rhetoric, and false or contentious reasoning. Reading further about Aristotle’s categories of logical proofs I found that they still made sense in term of modern rhetorics. Scientific demonstration reasoning is defined as coming from premises that are true or that experts believe to be true. Dialetic reasoning defined as coming from premises that are accepted by people who are suppose to be wise; less certain premises. Rhetorical reasoning defined as being drawn from premises of belief that are accepted by all or most members of a community. False/contentious reasoning is defined as coming from premises that only appear to be widely accepted or that are mistakes/lies. All of these ancient categories of logical proofs can still be used in modern rhetoric’s. This chapter of the book was helpful when thinking of how to construct and argument logically.

The second reading in The Rhetorical Tradition was interesting because it talked about more modern rhetor’s: Cicero and Quintilian. Both rhetor’s were regarded as coming from families of money of high class and money and have similar training, yet Quintilian’s rhetoric did not seem to match up to Cicero. In fact Quintilian from the reading appeared to be an amateur rhetor who merrily repeated other rhetor’s idea in a slightly different context. Cicero was credited for setting the standards of the modern categories of speech (deliberative, forensic, ceremonial) and the five canons of rhetorical composing process (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery). But Quintilian was only credited for arguing that a good speaker needs to be a good man, an idea that was originally suggested by Plato anyways. Quintilian’s style even focused mainly on other rhetor’s ideas. In a rhetorical argument his known style was to approach a subject with the view of an ancient rhetor and then align his own opinion with that of the ancient author. Personally I did not find Quintilian to be a great asset to rhetoric. I found only his advice of “presence of mind” meaning to keep grace under pressure to be useful in term of rhetoric.

The Common Topics and the Common places: Finding the Available Means

Would ancient rhetor's divied topics of conversation into "common" and "special" topics if they were aware

of how people would think, act and speak in the future?

While reading chapter four of Ancient Rhetoric’s for Contemporary Students I found it interesting that ancient rhetor’s, specifically Aristotle, divided topics of conversation into “common” topics and “special” topics. Common topics were defined as suited to any argument while special topics were exclusive to specific fields of argument. What I found interesting about this was that common topics for past rhetor’s seem like special topics for present rhetor’s. Special topics were ones about art, or science. Personally I feel that “common” topics of rhetoric in the present are generally ones about art, philosophy, science and so on.  Which in contrast then, “common” topics for past rhetor’s would be “special” topics for present rhetor’s. “Common” topics for past rhetoric’s were broken into three categories: conjecture, degree and possibility. Conjecture common topics are concerned with what people, the world and society are like both in the past, future, and present. Examples of conjecture topics would be “what exists” or “what does not exist”. Degree common topics ask questions of what is greater or lesser; such as, “what is greater than the mean or norm” or “what is lesser than the mean or norm”. Possibility common topics are ones that ask what is possible or impossible; such as, “what is possible in the future” or “what is impossible in the future”. Ancient categories of common topics of rhetoric are unspecific, and therefore more broad and “special”. I’m curious to know if ancient rhetor’s would divide topics of rhetoric the same way if they lived in the present. The way rhetor’s and people in general speak and think has greatly changed overtime. It is difficult to say if topics of rhetoric would be divided into “common” and “special” topics if ancient rhetor’s were aware of how the people would act/speak in the future. The question is then, how should topics of conversation be divided appropriately?

Stasis Theory: Asking the Right Questions

Rhetorical Activities 1:

The activity is to choose a topic and frame the topic with the theoretical and practical questions that are raised.

Issue chosen: drinking age

In the United States the drinking age is set at 21 years old but how useful is the drinking age? Would it be better to follow in the footsteps of other counties and lower the drinking age or eliminate it completely?

Theoretical questions: What is the reason for a drinking age? What was its original purpose? Why set at age 21?

Practical questions:  Whose interests are served by having a drinking age? How strongly is the drinking age enforced and followed? Would drinking be less appealing if there wasn’t an age requirement?

General Questions: Does underage drinking occur? (conjecture)

Is the drinking age law an issues of values or morals? (definition)

Is the drinking age law practical and useful? How does it affect society? (quality)

Should the drinking age be lowered or eliminated (policy)

Specific Questions: Does underage drinking occur in the United States? (conjecture)

Is underage drinking an issue in the United States? (definition)

Is alcohol to available? (quality)

Should the drinking age be more enforced? (policy)

Conjecture: Need to consider the possible answers and through a series of questions and research determine what the best solution is. What is the cause/reason for a drinking age? Can the drinking age law be changed? And what are the possible outcomes?

Definition: The morals and values need to be addressed. This is difficult because of the size of the United States and the variety of people that live her. Is it unethical to have people under the age 21 drink? Should the drinking age be an issue of state law? What is the majority of people’s opinions of the drinking age?

Quality: When it comes to questions of quality the values of society also need to be addressed. Is the drinking age a good thing? Is it affective? Does the drinking age affect the amount of people who suffer from alcoholism in the United States? And if so how would the number change if the drinking age was lowered or eliminated?

Policy: To understand the issue at large, the reason for a drinking age in the United States needs to be clearly explained. Both sides of the issue need to be defined. The benefits and faults of both sides need to be argued. Should the drinking age stay at 21? Should drinking be illegal? Should the drinking age requirement be raised? What reason is it okay for a person to drink after the age 21 and not before?

Based on the activity I just completed it can be seen that questions are necessary to get answers. Without the right questions how can we find the right answers? As Plato thought, it is the philosopher’s task to help others clear away the worldly debris that obscures the truths by asking questions.