Chapter 7 Reading

 In Chapter 7 of Ancient Rhetorics the author discuses Pathos and its uses in rhetorical arguments. Pathos is a valuable asset because of the decisions it pushes us towards that we may not make in another situation. The book uses a good example of this from the film Troy where the king is trying to persuade Achilles to help him by using different pathos appeals such as to his greed and empathy. A common example of this found in Pullman, WA is fighting where many people would not commit assault against another if the right pathos is used ones choice can be swayed an example of this might be “talking shit” about a certain person or group of people. Pathos is also useful in sports when motivating a team the coach will apply pathos to get the players pumped up through applying this kind of argument to subjects of school or personal pride.

The power of pathos is demonstrated in the authors story about how the 9/11 attacks motivated the decision to support the war on terror whereas now that the shock and grief of the even has worn down the support is significantly less. I feel that it is the most important of the the three appeals when concerning politcs. You can only sway so many people with ethos or logos but the concept of pathos applies to everyone of all ages. We all have emotion from the day we are born and there are concepts that are common to everyone that incite those emotions, for example murder is a concept that incites emotion of the masses because the majority of us share the same response to murder due to our culture. This is why I think pathos is the most important political tool because instead of aiming at a particular group of people it stirs up everyone.

RT Borthius Reading

This reading contained a short biography about Anicius Manlinus Severinus Boethius. I'm going to start this blog out by saying that I thought his name was pretty funny and that I'm going to name my first born child Manlinus, however on another not it was interesting that this man considered himself to be a philosopher that accepted rhetoric as an addition to is work but not the focus and yet he produced famous rhetorical work. It even stated in the reading that one of his most important rhetorical books known as book IV of Topica Boetii was used as a textbook on rhetoric. However it was unfortunate that this scholar was unable to continue his work due to a suspected plot he was involved in that led to his execution by Theodoric the Great.

After the bibliography the author goes into a discussion of rhetoric and breaks down the different parts almost in the way one would break down a species of animal by dividing it into three different kinds of species judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Then the topic is broken down even further and it is described how if all of the parts are not met then it is no longer rhetoric and it is also explained how rhetoric must seek to argue. If one was simply giving a question and answer argument it would be an unbroken oration in which the adversary and judge are the same person. Overall it was mildly entertaining reading even though the last few pages seemed to be dressed up a little too much instead of just presenting the information we were asked to learn. The breakdown of rhetoric was very useful though because it gives you all the parts of a rhetoric argument that is needed to make it successful and accurate.

Chapter 5 reading response

 In chapter five of Ancient Rhetoric’s the author starts to discuss the idea of logos. He explains that logos is the rational truth that is found through examining issues. One of the factors involved in finding logos is the premise or the statement made before the argument commences on a topic. Then he makes a connection with the fact that in order to make a premise true it must follow with one of the many types of reasoning such as dialectical reasoning in which the arguer is less certain of the truth of the premise but is accepted because those who have previously accepted it are deemed to have been wise therefore making it true. This theory however makes very little sense to me considering the fact that just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are always right. For example teachers are deemed to be wise individuals and I got in a argument with a teacher in high school about student rights involving bathroom privileges. Most people believed her to be right because she was “wise” but I proved her wrong by showing her the law. A good point the author makes about rhetorical reason involving probability is that the human mind makes connections that seem reasonable and what should happen but aren't always right. He goes on to use the example that a small weak person will not attack a large strong person which we know is not always true. His examples of deduction are quite interesting as well and make much more sense than the way the last chapter was explained. He talks about how if A is B and B is C then C is A which isn't always true. An amusing example of this was how he used the apple slogan to explain how silly this theory is. Overall the chapter laid down a much better explanation then the last about its topic. I was able to retain much more information and felt like I was wasting a lot less of my time.

Chapter3 After Class Response

So I'm just going to write this response to my post because I can't find anyone with posts up about the readings. I felt that after class and listening to everyone else I had a much firmer grasp on what the reading was about. Going over individual parts of the book and what people discussed helped me see some of the stuff I missed in the book. I still feel like I had a basic grasp on the subject before class. I like how all of the other students applied their thoughts in direct relation to the abortion story in the story because it is something I can easily relate to and by putting it in terms of that argument I was able to follow without getting lost. One thing I noticed though is that the book really puts things in a more complex way than is necessary its like calling a fork a three pronged utensil for spearing substance and transporting to the mouth. If you simply put it as fork we would understand better and the book really made things hard to understand by blowing the concept of staseis out of proportion.

Chapter 3 Reading Response

 In this weeks reading assignment of ARCS the book goes into a very in depth discussion which is actually difficult to follow about staseis. However once I figured out what the hell they were even talking about I found that there was a lot of information on the topic. It seems like the author is basicaly discussing that anyone can have an opinion but when you find the staseis you can create a solid argument instead of just an opinion that you throw at the opposition. It talks about how once you understand both sides of the argument you can build your argument using the four questions. You can ask yourself the conjecture, the definition, the quality, and the policy which will give you the solid basis from which you can defend your side of the argument. Another good strategy discussed was about examining the article and how you can defend both sides without taking an immediate stance on which side you're on. The topic of abortion was a good example of this because it is such a commonly used argument and easy to relate to what the author was trying to say in regards to the argument.

On the other hand what I didn't like about the chapter was how boring it was to read. I really thought that the author took the long way to explain things instead of simply saying it. More or less I just felt that he made the material more complicated then is necessary. When the four questions are explained in relation to abortion the author gives a multitude of examples but to an extent that is not necessary. He seems to bludgeon the information into the reader instead of simply saying what is needed and then moving on. Overall I found the chapter more of a pain in the ass to read than the information was worth but that’s just my take.