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.
nice!
ReplyDelete