Reflection on Entries
While writing these journals over the course of this semester I furthered my understanding of Aristotle’s big three rhetorical tools of ethos, pathos and logos. While coming into this class with a general understanding of each this knowledge was depended through learning the various tools, tactics and uses for each of these.In chapter sixteen the text shows us how to use ethos to detect ‘liars’, not by so much as detecting actually lies but by using it as a tool to determine a speaker’s trustworthiness. Another example comes from chapter twenty-three which covers hoe to recover from a screw up, in which the author starts with goal setting, which is taking time to not panic after the mistake and taking time to think of a way out rather than jumping right to the basic instant of excuse making, scapegoating or apologizing. Lastly in chapter twenty-nine we learn how to put everything we learned over the course of the semester together to form a powerful rhetorical offensive when speaking or writing. Although I am more knowledgeable know having take the class that’s not to say there weren’t challenges along the way. A challenge I faced without even realizing it until a few weeks ago was that I had been confusing ethos and pathos for each other, thinking that ethos was the emotional appeal and pathos was the appeal to one’s character.
Journal Entries
Journal Entry on Ch 9, 11 & 12
Takeaway on the concept of ‘rhetoric’: In Chapter 9, the author begins explaining the importance of using pathos in an argument and explains that it can be used to affect the audience’s judgement.(85) Pathos is the use of emotions and emotional cues in ones speech pattern as a way of showing tone and putting your personal feelings clearly into perspective. As the author states it can also be used to influence the judgment of others by swaying their emotions into overpowering their more rational thoughts and feelings.(85)
Takeaway on the concept of ‘arguments’: In chapter 11, the author begins explaining that when we deliver arguments we deliver them in a way that sounds good to us but give no thought to what argument would sound good to the audience. The author states that this rhetorical mistake can be fatal in an argument. (110) The author then gives us multiple tools and tips as to how we can avoid this fatal rhetorical mistake. For example, one such tip was finding a commonplace, a viewpoint/belief/ideal that your audience holds in common, between you and your audience. (112) This can be used to quickly grab your audience attention as a whole and used to jumpstart your stance on your particular belief or issue with said belief.
Takeaway on the concept of ‘framing’: In Chapter 12 the author elaborates on how to use the commonplace in taking a personal stance in your argument. This can be done through two processes called labeling and framing. (133) There are four specific techniques for labeling: term changing, redefinition, definition jujitsu and definition judo. (134) after the labeling process there are three steps to be done to frame your argument after the labeling had occurred. These steps are finding commonplace words that favor you, defining the issue in the broadest context, lastly dealing with the specific problem while speaking in the future tense.(134) Doing these while using the commonplace shared by you and your audience will help you develop a powerful and persuasive stance on any topic.
Journal Entry Ch 13, 14, 16
Ch 13 – In this chapter we get a deeper meaning for the rhetorical argument tool of logos not just being logic and also the tools of logos that allow us as a speaker to apply facts, values, and attitudes to the problem at hand (137). This comes from a few a few of the great Greek philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle and Homer. These three more notably laid out the basic tools of logos for us; the biggest one for me being the enthymeme which is the condensed argument packet that takes the commonplace and uses this as the first step in convincing the audience of the speaker’s argument (139). More simply it’s the logical part of the argument that uses deductive logic and is based on a commonplace instead of a universal truth (148). To me this best exemplifies what a negotiator does he strips down the entire argument into its simplest form, finds a commonplace between him and the person he is negotiating with and the builds his argument from there. (Click for picture)
Ch 14 – In Chapter fourteen the text presents to us the seven most common logical errors, known as fallacies, that one can make while presenting an argument (151). My favorite of which is the straw man fallacy, this logical error ignores some parts of the opponent’s argument in order to set up a rhetorical straw man (165). Meaning that parts of the argument are ignored so that the speaker can make an easier counter-argument to the diminished argument set up by the speaker themselves. This fallacy falls under the sixth deadly sin: the red herring. The straw man fallacy falls under this sin because it is a direct variant of this sin, which distracts the audience to make it forget the main issue is by setting up and countering an issue that’s easier to argue (169).
Ch 16 – In chapter sixteen the text shows us how to use ethos to detect ‘liars’, not by so much as detecting actually lies but by using it as a tool to determine a speaker’s trustworthiness (198). The three basic principle used by the persuader; disinterest, virtue and practical wisdom turn out to be the same three principles used to serve as a gauge of trustworthiness (190).
In Chapter 25 the author explains to us how to judge a medium for its rhetorical traits. The author explains this can be done by examining what physical traits it uses. For example if it invokes the sense of sight then it is mostly ethos and pathos (299). Another example given is that if it invokes the sense of sound which according to the text is, “the most logical sound,” it is logos (299). The senses of smell, taste and touch invoking almost completely the emotional side of your sense making thee senses indicate it to be tied strongly to ethos (299).
In Chapter 28 the author outlines for us how to uses rhetoric in an essay to turn it from a normal essay into a rhetorically written persuasive essay. The author makes a point to tell us that the most persuasive kind of essays are personal essays (334). He continues to say that when you write an essay, you turn embarrassing moments into great stories, flaws into common elements of humanity and personal lessons learned through mistakes into sharable morals (334). The tools for this are the tactical flaw, theme twist, epiphany and narrative arc. Of which I believe the narrative arc to be the most important of the four because if there isn’t a good narrative arc then the flow of the essay will be hard to go with an uneasy for the reader which will completely disengage them from any piece of writing you are trying to get them to read.
Journal 29 & “Civil Disobedience”
Chapter 29 of the text is all about bringing together the whole arsenal of rhetorical weapons (360). The author lays out how to build a good rhetorical offense as well as a good rhetorical defense. For the offensive side, the author breaks it into three steps of setting your goal, set the tense and knowing your audience’s values an d commonplaces before using ethos logos and pathos in that order to begin your rhetorical offensive (360). For the defensive side, the author explains how to get out of a situation when you don’t know what to say. This can be achieved by conceding, redefining your concession and then switching to the future tense to counter (360).
The main takeaway i got from Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” was the modeling he set up for civil disobedience. He argues that people can rightly disobey laws if these laws are unjust. He gets into his personal experiences with civil disobedience talking about when he refused to pay taxes out of protest of the Mexican war and slavery as well I believe. He lays out that there are two types of laws in the world; the law of man, which if unjust can be disobeyed by protesting citizens and the law of God which is a higher, more just law that should be obeyed always.