After reading the explanations of examples in Chapter 5 (rhetorical, historical, fictional, analogy, similar and contrary), I have come to believe that fictional example (along with fable) is one I would NOT employ. It is by far the weakest of the examples. It is silly to assume that adults would buy in to an example given about something which only exists in someone else’s imagination. Now I know this is placing a certain amount of intelligence and cynicism into a potential audience of mine (perhaps even devaluing their imaginations), but I would take it personally if I was an audience member and a rhetor used an example similar to the one provided in ARCS (p.176-177). The example provided basically supposes that because people generally liked pop culture fictional films such as E.T. and Alien, scenes and examples from these movies could be used to persuade people into believing that aliens are friendly or hostile, respectively. I do understand, however, that fables are to be used when there are no historical parellels (176).
The only instance in which this type of example should be used, is with children. Naturally children like stories, they like fictional characters and so this method is especially useful in advertising. In fact this may be the most effective method with children as they may not comprehend the other types of example. When targeted at adults, a company who uses fictional characters such as Geico or the Mr. Peanut character may be disregarded as silly (particularly if the adult does not have children).
A Brief(er) Invective of Enthymemes (Encomium of Examples)
At this point I would also like to take on Aristotle for preferring enthymemes over examples. "Modern audiences are ordinarily impressed by examples," (ARCS, 181) is one reason that I believe Aristotle’s use of enthymemes and syllogisms are not as effective for use in today’s society. I feel as if enthymemes can be used too generally and can result in assumptions rather than certainties. For example: Michael Jordan, Hank Aaron, Jerry Rice are the greatest athletes of all time. Michael Jordan, Hank Aaron, Jerry Rice are African-Americans.All African-Americans are great athletes. I actually find it difficult to produce my own enthymeme which makes sense, so I hope the one I provided above is an accurate or correct enthymeme. I guess in summary, I am fond of examples (as Aristotle was too, except his was more of a second-place fondnes). I look forward to discussing this chapter tonight and I hope I get to express my fondness of examples in some way.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Observations of Explicit and Implicit Messages
The terms from Chapter 5 that really hit-home for me were maxims and enthymemes, specifically the textual examples of "Think Apple" and the G.W. Bush rhetoric ofor 9/11. For me, I considered either a maxim or enthymeme examples of messages that articulate both explicit and implicit meanings. In other words, the deconstruction of major, minor, and conclusion to Apple’s “Think Apple” campaign carries with it both an explicit message to simply consider the possibility of Apple, but then also implicitly encourages us to buy it. This example made me consider further how advertising industry coins phrases—maxims—to encourage the public to desire their product. I think of Nike’s “Just do it” campaign (and isn’t it fun that they use the term “campaign”); the advertisers know that their intention is to overhaul our thought process and create a new slogan, a saying, that will stick in our minds connecting a shoe to the idea that without this shoe, you cannot “do,” but if you buy the shoe you will be able to “do it”—whatever it may be. And further, the phrase implies not only that you can do something, but that you should also be “doing"...and if you are not, you do not belong to this group of "doers," these Nike shoe wear-ers. It's fun to think of how language acts as a signifier of multiple meanings in one short, simple phrase.
I think Erin brought up a nice correlation with Animal Farm—a book which I have not read since the 9th grade, but nevertheless am fond of. Isn’t it interesting how a phrase like “Four legs bad; two legs good” can really shape our way of thinking, associating the number of legs one uses to either the attribute of something that is “good” or something that is “bad.” G.W.’s language for the 9/11 attack (and even now the use of “attack” is an interesting word choice), is particularly interesting to me because while the message is openly stated, there is a clear (yet implicit) intention; we should not only take the time to assess the events that have occurred, but we should also pass judgment on them and attribute the ideological presence of “good” and “evil.”
I think Erin brought up a nice correlation with Animal Farm—a book which I have not read since the 9th grade, but nevertheless am fond of. Isn’t it interesting how a phrase like “Four legs bad; two legs good” can really shape our way of thinking, associating the number of legs one uses to either the attribute of something that is “good” or something that is “bad.” G.W.’s language for the 9/11 attack (and even now the use of “attack” is an interesting word choice), is particularly interesting to me because while the message is openly stated, there is a clear (yet implicit) intention; we should not only take the time to assess the events that have occurred, but we should also pass judgment on them and attribute the ideological presence of “good” and “evil.”
I understand the importance of logos; however, I feel that people often allow pathos and ethos get in the way. Therefore, I believe that these three types of arguments definitely intertwine together. A rhetor could use a logical method as a way to work through an issue, but for many people, personality and emotion are often difficult to separate from logic. As I was reading this chapter I kept thinking about a current event that is causing quite a debate. The issue is whether or not a mosque should be built near Ground Zero. This is causing various protests with strong supporters on both sides. A rhetorician could create an enthymematic argument that could really go in either direction. One of the statements could be: The terrorists are responsible for the September 11th tragedy. On page 170, the authors state that the rhetorician may omit part of the argument because the audience will “fill in” the blanks. Prior to this, the authors mention that “Enthymemes are powerful because they are based in community beliefs. Because of this, whether the reasoning in an enthymeme is sound or whether the statements it contains are true or not, sadly enough, often makes little difference to the community’s acceptance of the argument” (170). I believe that this is true with the mosque debate. Most of these protestors are not open to hear the other side. Those who support the mosque are arguing that they have the right to worship their own God. They are also arguing that there is a difference between Islam and terrorists and grouping the two together is close-minded bigotry. The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg argues that all Americans have an equal right to pray and worship where they choose. On the other had, those protesting against the mosque have their reasons as to why they do not feel that it should be built as well. Those who lost loved ones argue that Ground Zero is the closest thing that they have to a cemetery to mourn their loss. Others say that building monuments to commemorate great victories is an Islamic tradition. Therefore, this mosque would represent a victory. Some protestors also say that there are other mosques throughout the city; they just do not want a mosque built at that location. Within this debate, rhetorical examples are quite persuasive because they recall specific memories. Both sides are definitely using this to their advantage. “A rhetor can give as many vivid details as possible to evoke the audience’s memory of the incident and thus to induce their sympathy with his argument” (172). Many articles and news reports use the senses to create sympathy. The particular parts of the interview that they may choose to include touch the viewer or reader. Ultimately this debate will most likely continue whether or not the mosque is built. The authors summarize it best on page 191 when they state, “Distinct groups of persons also hold differing sets of values. The boundaries between virtue and vice are also notoriously hard to define; acceptable behavior in one setting may be utterly unacceptable in another.”
Bringing Down the Argument
“In order to determine whether this argument from a reason is accurate or convincing, the middle premise must be articulated; once it is articulated, a rhetor who wants to be convincing can determine whether or now it can or needs to be supported by evidence. Such an examination in this case shows that at least a few examples should be assembled in order to shore up both the major and minor premise.” (167) The text uses several examples of this, such as “secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer” (166) and “Racist slurs directed against innocent people are offensive and ought to be punished.”
There are different flaws in each enthymeme’s, so I will take them one at a time. In the first, the major premise is sound. Based on the scientific evidence we have, secondhand smoke could cause lung cancer. The minor premise, “Because people are allowed to smoke in our workplace, secondhand smoke is present there.” (166) The term workplace here is at issue, because most workplaces banned smoking in workspaces long ago. As a result, is this minor premise defining the workplace as outside or in designated smoking areas as well as the office? If this is indeed the case, who could the secondhand smoke hurt? If the complaint is about the secondhand smoke outdoors, it is almost moos. As a former smoker, I see both sides of this issue, but I am aware that unless people outdoors are blowing the smoke almost into your mouth, there is very little risk of inhaling secondhand smoke.
If the complaint relates to designated smoking areas, the only people venturing into said areas are smokers, who really couldn’t complain about the dangers of secondhand smoke themselves without being more than a little hypocritical. One could make the argument that a non-smoking employee might feel the need to go into one of these areas to ask a question, make a request or any other business-related behavior, but all such an individual need do to keep themselves from being at risk of secondhand smoke is not to do so. Smoke breaks last a maximum (in most workplaces) of fifteen minutes, and if that is too long to wait, there are always cell phones people can be reached on.
The other possibility is that this workplace actually does allow smoking in the office, in which case the argument is either (for the most part) valid or a relic, an argument that no longer has any bearing on present-day circumstances. In any event, we can see how the facts that are left unstated, regardless of the strength of the deductive reasoning used, can unravel even the simplest of arguments.
Example #2 has issues before we can even reach the minor premise. Most people would consider racist slurs offensive, but this would likely depend on what sort of racism was being practiced and who it was practiced against. The minor premise states that a greek organization (we would be led to believe a fraternity, but since it is not clearly stated, we cannot be certain) shouted racial epithets at people passing by. Not only does the premise fail to define who was passing by (the phrasing would likely have differed if there was, say, an NAACP rally walking through campus as opposed to white students only, let alone a mix of ethnicities), but the term “racial epithets” is misleading. On the surface, it would seem to be your standard racial slurs (gook, wetback, etc), but consider society’s views of what is racist and what is not has changed vastly in the last half-century. In the early 1960s you still had firehoses being used on blacks in the south and schools had not even fully been integrated yet. Whereas a few years ago Don Imus was fired for using a “racial epithet” (“nappy-headed hoe”, specifically) on the air. Keep in mind that the FCC is not concerned, for the most part, with hate speech. Theoretically, a host could go on air and drop the N-bomb and not be fined by the FCC. What regulates such content today are the corporate conglomerates that own the vast majority of mass media outlets in this country. So fifty years ago, businesses reserved (and invoked) the right to reserve service to anyone (again, especially in the south), but today, a throwaway comment like Imus’ cost a man his job thanks to that very same business culture – “don’t upset the status quo.”
Tangent aside, the definition of “racial epithets” is vague at best, based on the changes that have taken place in our culture. The other line worth examining in the major premise relates to the punishment it advocates. Racist speech (which, keep in mind, is not offensive to 100% of the population) is largely looked down upon, but what is the punishment prescribed by this major premise? Even in the specific areas of the argument, the greek organization in question simply “ought to be punished.” What does that mean, exactly? Should they lose their charter? Be subject to a fine? Go through mandatory sensitivity training? Be expelled? Put on trial for a hate crime?
One would think some of these options are more realistic/appropriate than others, but as illustrated in the Imus example, one can never be too sure in today’s world. What is appropriate to some may not be to others, and that goes for punishment as well as the offense it relates too. Since the major premise (or the argument itself) refrains from stating what the punishment for this organization should be, how can we know whether to agree or disagree?
Arguments like the ones I have made examples of here are ones that tug at quick, visceral heart strings. In today’s world, smoking and racism are both terrible things. Think back even further than the 1960s, however, when doctors (yes, doctors!) were endorsing certain brands of cigarettes and tobacco products. I’d extend my previous history example to the racial issue, but I don’t feel that’s necessary, given the oppressive history of our country in regards to race.
Things change. Culture changes. People change. In the cases listed here, too much is left unsaid to make valid judgments on the arguments in question.
Don’t limit your analysis merely to the examples in this text, however. Turn on your radio or television and you’ll see the same things. Vague, loosely-connected statements designed to make you think a specific product or company will save you money or improve your life.
Logical proofs and thought-processes are one of the best things to have evolved in our brains. Used incorrectly, though, they can be incredibly deceptive. Appearances are not everything. Before you buy into any given argument, first tear down its walls.
Once you do, don’t be surprised if the wiring isn’t connected well, if it is at all.
Two Legs Better...Logically.
This spring, I will again be teaching the novel Animal Farm, George Orwell’s famous satire. In it, several of the characters, who represent factions of the Bolshevik Revolution, fall victim to many of the concepts in this chapter’s reading.
They adopt the maxim, “Four Legs Bad; Two Legs Good” as the impetus for their rebellion. In this sense, the maxim serves as a positive force in unifying the population in overthrowing the evil dictator Farmer Jones. The animals find freedom in its simplistic structure and generally enjoy reciting the anthem, as they “like to hear their beliefs confirmed” (183).
However, the revolutionary leaders, the pigs, later alter this maxim to fit their current goal in trading with the same humans with whom they rebelled against. The maxim then becomes “Four Legs Good; Two Legs Better.” The maxim is now used to justify the corrupt nature of the leaders and pacify the general population into thinking that the leaders are still adhering to the same values of the original rebellion, only with minor adaptations.
In their reading, my students gravitate most to the theme of the Exploitation of the Naive which examines the manipulation of the animals through the use of these maxims. They enjoy seeing how the pigs used various maxims and propaganda techniques throughout the novel to manipulate their inexperienced or ignorant counterparts.
I found it interesting then how Aristotle warns against exposing the naïve or inexperienced to these maxims considering how attractive these quick assertions of beliefs are: “one cautionary note about maxims is in order: Aristotle warned that maxims should not be used by young people, who run the risk of appearing to espouse something in a maxim that they have not learned through experience” (184).
I wonder how many times we as a society believe in a maxim or say a maxim without fully understanding the implication of the argument it is presenting. When parts of the enthymeme are omitted, the conclusion presents itself in an extremely assertive manner which can be easily accepted by not only the young, but essentially all those who enjoy the sound of it.
In Animal Farm this is nicely illustrated because the mass population is characterized as sheep that blindly follow in unison whatever directive is called for. But even then, it is easy to see how quickly the use of rhetoric and the charm of the logical argument can spiral out of control in contemporary society.
I look forward to see how next week’s reading on the Ethical Proof complements or contrasts this notion.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
To induce or deduce, that is the question
The concept of logos, as discussed in chapter 5 of Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students seems fairly straightforward, although there are a lot of terms to keep track of in the discussion of logos. Perhaps the discussion on logos made more sense because we had already worked with it briefly when we used the worksheet on appeals to identify ethos, pathos and logos in the “Real Men of Genius” advertisement.
What first struck me, though, as I began to read the chapter was the quote attributed to Aristotle that introduces the chapter: “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in like manner, some orators are better at the former and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (158).
So as I read, I was searching for the answer as to why the enthymeme was given the place of honor in argument, with the greatest potential for stirring the masses. Crowley and Hawhee attempt to address the issue through their discussion of deductive reasoning and induction. To oversimplify, the enthymeme, serving as the basis of deductive reasoning, provides stronger, more convincing proof of the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from an argument is accurate.
Why is that? Well, looking at the structure of both types of reasoning, we see that induction relies on observation of specific examples that are then viewed collectively in order to draw a conclusion, making this conclusion, at best, only as good as the examples which produced it. It would make sense then that the more related examples one has, the more probable or certain the conclusion’s truth or likelihood becomes. On the other hand, it would also seem that despite a significant number of observable examples, the presence of one example or case where the conclusion is brought into question would seriously weaken the inductive argument. For example, say a group of scientists run a study to test the effects of a new drug. Using mice as their subject, they run 50 trials. In 49 of those trials, the mice show no signs of ill effects. The scientists may be feeling pretty confident, at this point, in assuming the safety of the drug. However, in the 50th trial, the mice sprout excessive ear hair and their tails fall off. Assuming a controlled environment, this would deflate the good feelings those scientists had to this point and would also put a damper on a speedy pathway for this drug to the marketplace. Inductive argument, therefore, seems harder to prove. Crowley and Hawhee seem to sum this up when they say, “If a rhetor must begin with examples, she should include several; however, if she uses them last, in support of an enthymeme, one example will do” (181).
Deductive argument, with its reliance on enthymematic patterns, seems to offers a more certain conclusion because it is based on known or accepted truths, often commonplaces. With deduction, then, a conclusion is based on how well a particular instance relates to or fits the generally accepted premise. I guess it could be likened to hypothesizing, with the hypothesis more probable as long as a clear relationship between major and minor premises is established. The leap to a conclusion is a swifter and straighter path than with induction. Of course, at the heart of deductive reasoning is the characterization of the major premise as an accepted belief or truth. When the believability of the major premise is called into question (a fallacy is presented as truth), the soundness of the argument, too, becomes questionable. Okay, so I guess I can begin to see Aristotle’s point.
Another idea that caught my attention in this chapter was the authors’ distinction between the examples used in inductive reasoning and the rhetorical example. They mark this distinction by establishing the purpose of each example. In inductive reasoning the examples are given to strengthen a generalization. Rhetorical examples, as Crowley and Hawhee describe them, are aimed at evoking a more emotional response through the use of sensory triggers. To me this indicates that there is an underlying pathetic appeal at play as well in these examples. Perhaps this is why, as Crowley and Hawhee suggest, the rhetorical example in modern rhetoric carries much sway (172).
The final observation I found myself making was in regard to the frequent references to audience that were made throughout the chapter. “A rhetor should try to determine whether his audience has any preconceived opinions that are relevant to his point” (183). “Arguments from sign appeal to the daily experiences that we share with members of our audience” (185). “…much depends on the character of the audience and the generally received opinion…” (Quintillian, qtd. in Crowley & Hawhee 191). It is clear that the role of audience cannot be underestimated. The audience plays a role in terms of how one structures the argument, what type of reasoning is used, what evidence is best used to support the argument, and so on.
Oh, I almost forgot; I recently came across this cartoon in a text I have at school and thought it seemed fitting to our discussion on logos. Hope you appreciate the humor: http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/fm-humor-penguins.html
What first struck me, though, as I began to read the chapter was the quote attributed to Aristotle that introduces the chapter: “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in like manner, some orators are better at the former and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (158).
So as I read, I was searching for the answer as to why the enthymeme was given the place of honor in argument, with the greatest potential for stirring the masses. Crowley and Hawhee attempt to address the issue through their discussion of deductive reasoning and induction. To oversimplify, the enthymeme, serving as the basis of deductive reasoning, provides stronger, more convincing proof of the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from an argument is accurate.
Why is that? Well, looking at the structure of both types of reasoning, we see that induction relies on observation of specific examples that are then viewed collectively in order to draw a conclusion, making this conclusion, at best, only as good as the examples which produced it. It would make sense then that the more related examples one has, the more probable or certain the conclusion’s truth or likelihood becomes. On the other hand, it would also seem that despite a significant number of observable examples, the presence of one example or case where the conclusion is brought into question would seriously weaken the inductive argument. For example, say a group of scientists run a study to test the effects of a new drug. Using mice as their subject, they run 50 trials. In 49 of those trials, the mice show no signs of ill effects. The scientists may be feeling pretty confident, at this point, in assuming the safety of the drug. However, in the 50th trial, the mice sprout excessive ear hair and their tails fall off. Assuming a controlled environment, this would deflate the good feelings those scientists had to this point and would also put a damper on a speedy pathway for this drug to the marketplace. Inductive argument, therefore, seems harder to prove. Crowley and Hawhee seem to sum this up when they say, “If a rhetor must begin with examples, she should include several; however, if she uses them last, in support of an enthymeme, one example will do” (181).
Deductive argument, with its reliance on enthymematic patterns, seems to offers a more certain conclusion because it is based on known or accepted truths, often commonplaces. With deduction, then, a conclusion is based on how well a particular instance relates to or fits the generally accepted premise. I guess it could be likened to hypothesizing, with the hypothesis more probable as long as a clear relationship between major and minor premises is established. The leap to a conclusion is a swifter and straighter path than with induction. Of course, at the heart of deductive reasoning is the characterization of the major premise as an accepted belief or truth. When the believability of the major premise is called into question (a fallacy is presented as truth), the soundness of the argument, too, becomes questionable. Okay, so I guess I can begin to see Aristotle’s point.
Another idea that caught my attention in this chapter was the authors’ distinction between the examples used in inductive reasoning and the rhetorical example. They mark this distinction by establishing the purpose of each example. In inductive reasoning the examples are given to strengthen a generalization. Rhetorical examples, as Crowley and Hawhee describe them, are aimed at evoking a more emotional response through the use of sensory triggers. To me this indicates that there is an underlying pathetic appeal at play as well in these examples. Perhaps this is why, as Crowley and Hawhee suggest, the rhetorical example in modern rhetoric carries much sway (172).
The final observation I found myself making was in regard to the frequent references to audience that were made throughout the chapter. “A rhetor should try to determine whether his audience has any preconceived opinions that are relevant to his point” (183). “Arguments from sign appeal to the daily experiences that we share with members of our audience” (185). “…much depends on the character of the audience and the generally received opinion…” (Quintillian, qtd. in Crowley & Hawhee 191). It is clear that the role of audience cannot be underestimated. The audience plays a role in terms of how one structures the argument, what type of reasoning is used, what evidence is best used to support the argument, and so on.
Oh, I almost forgot; I recently came across this cartoon in a text I have at school and thought it seemed fitting to our discussion on logos. Hope you appreciate the humor: http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/fm-humor-penguins.html
Rhetoric in the government
Last week I received these two videos by email.
Video 1
Video 2
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE READING
I had to watch these videos several times. After watching them the first time, I immediately started looking at them from the rhetorical perspective. Now, that I just finished my reading on chapter 5, the logical proof, I thought they were pertinent for the discussion. In my opinion, they support their argumentation on the logical proof only. We can see that they used two of the four methods of reasoning proposed by Aristotle. (159). They use scientific demonstration and rhetorical examples.
Apparently, they don’t seem to be using scientific truths. However, they use our own experience to demonstrate us that the argument they are using is true. Both videos are designed in such a way that they make it evident to us that we’ve missed the details. After experiencing both videos we end up with the conclusion that it’s true; that if we are not aware of cyclists we won’t be able to see them easily on the road.
Additionally, our experience of the videos is also a rhetorical example. As you can see the videos don’t say much about cyclists. They don’t give us statistics of bikers killed by drivers, nor do they tell us the probabilities of a cyclist being killed on the road. They just mention cyclists in one sentence at the end. What we experience watching the videos is the example itself. Us not seeing the changes or the bear is the example of what happens when you are not looking for something, or looking at something else. You can easily miss objects that are right in front of you such as a biker may be. Crowley and Hawhee affirm that “the brief argument from example works because people respond to the specificity of examples” (173) and I think this is a good example of it.
Finally, the videos also use rhetorical reasoning because they involve human action. Their objective is to move us into action when driving. They intend to make us aware of bikers next time we take the road.
Furthermore, I think that this campaign is the result of an exhaustive process of invention. Anyone could say “Off course, it is very creative!”. But it is not just that. The important point is that they found the real cause for drivers not seeing cyclists on the road. It is not that they are bad drivers, or that cyclists are distracted. It is that we as drivers are trained to look at traffic lights, stop signs, other drivers but not cyclists. I believe that in order to get to the underlying cause of the problem, the creators used stasis theory. They used conjecture questions to determine the cause, the origin and the nature of the problem. I am sure they defined the problem and qualified it as right or wrong. This process allowed them to explore their opponent’s (the drivers) point of view and anticipated that their argument most probable would be, “I didn’t see it!”.
Most importantly, when confronted with policy questions and if some action should be taken they came up with this advertising campaign. This set of videos are part of a campaign by the governmental office Transport for London. I checked the page and I found that off course kayros is present as well. The page states that “London has already seen a big rise in the number of people cycling, the potential for cycling in London is huge. We're targeting a 400 per cent increase in cycling by 2026 compared to 2001 levels”. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15459.aspx) So, it is pertinent to talk about bikers safety in this moment in London.
All in all, this is a very well done campaign that, in my opinion, achieves its objective by using the rhetoric methods of invention.
Another example that I found interesting to show the use of logos is a renaissance painting by Masaccio. The painting is called Tribute Money and was made in 1420’s.
Video 1
Video 2
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE READING
I had to watch these videos several times. After watching them the first time, I immediately started looking at them from the rhetorical perspective. Now, that I just finished my reading on chapter 5, the logical proof, I thought they were pertinent for the discussion. In my opinion, they support their argumentation on the logical proof only. We can see that they used two of the four methods of reasoning proposed by Aristotle. (159). They use scientific demonstration and rhetorical examples.
Apparently, they don’t seem to be using scientific truths. However, they use our own experience to demonstrate us that the argument they are using is true. Both videos are designed in such a way that they make it evident to us that we’ve missed the details. After experiencing both videos we end up with the conclusion that it’s true; that if we are not aware of cyclists we won’t be able to see them easily on the road.
Additionally, our experience of the videos is also a rhetorical example. As you can see the videos don’t say much about cyclists. They don’t give us statistics of bikers killed by drivers, nor do they tell us the probabilities of a cyclist being killed on the road. They just mention cyclists in one sentence at the end. What we experience watching the videos is the example itself. Us not seeing the changes or the bear is the example of what happens when you are not looking for something, or looking at something else. You can easily miss objects that are right in front of you such as a biker may be. Crowley and Hawhee affirm that “the brief argument from example works because people respond to the specificity of examples” (173) and I think this is a good example of it.
Finally, the videos also use rhetorical reasoning because they involve human action. Their objective is to move us into action when driving. They intend to make us aware of bikers next time we take the road.
Furthermore, I think that this campaign is the result of an exhaustive process of invention. Anyone could say “Off course, it is very creative!”. But it is not just that. The important point is that they found the real cause for drivers not seeing cyclists on the road. It is not that they are bad drivers, or that cyclists are distracted. It is that we as drivers are trained to look at traffic lights, stop signs, other drivers but not cyclists. I believe that in order to get to the underlying cause of the problem, the creators used stasis theory. They used conjecture questions to determine the cause, the origin and the nature of the problem. I am sure they defined the problem and qualified it as right or wrong. This process allowed them to explore their opponent’s (the drivers) point of view and anticipated that their argument most probable would be, “I didn’t see it!”.
Most importantly, when confronted with policy questions and if some action should be taken they came up with this advertising campaign. This set of videos are part of a campaign by the governmental office Transport for London. I checked the page and I found that off course kayros is present as well. The page states that “London has already seen a big rise in the number of people cycling, the potential for cycling in London is huge. We're targeting a 400 per cent increase in cycling by 2026 compared to 2001 levels”. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15459.aspx) So, it is pertinent to talk about bikers safety in this moment in London.
All in all, this is a very well done campaign that, in my opinion, achieves its objective by using the rhetoric methods of invention.
Another example that I found interesting to show the use of logos is a renaissance painting by Masaccio. The painting is called Tribute Money and was made in 1420’s.
The painting shows Christ and the 12 apostles arriving at Capernaum and being confronted by a roman tax gatherer who demanded their payment of the tribute to be able to enter the city. When this happens Christ tells Peter that he will find the money in the mouth of a fish in the river. Following Christ’s instructions Peter goes to the shore, catches the fish, get the money and pays the tax.
The interesting part of all this is that the painting was made in Florence, when the government had just introduced the first income tax in history called catasto. The reason they did this was because they were under attack by the Milanese who were going to invade them and the government needed money to create and organize an army to defend themselves. Art Historians think that the Florentine government may have ordered this painting to persuade the citizens to pay this new income tax.
The use of logos that I find in this painting is enthymemes. The major premise would be Christ and the apostles paid their taxes. Minor premise: Everyone, no exceptions, even Christ has to pay taxes. Conclusion: Florentine citizens should pay their taxes. Kayros was important as well having into account that the tax was a new device in this city and people may have been resisting it in some way.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the use of rhetoric by governments through out history and its use in different media such as video and painting.
ARCS Chapter 5
I am really having a hard time writing these blogs. I am finding that my ENGL 470 class and this one really intertwine, and sometimes it is hard to keep what information came from each class straight! For this particular blog, however, I am going to purposely criss-cross classes because we did an activity in ENGL 470 that I think is very fitting to this week’s reading on Logical Proofs.
In ENGL 470, we were given an excerpt from Shakespear’s Henry V. The excerpt was of Henry V’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech. (You Tube and Text.)
And told to go through it to find the different uses of ethos, pathos, and logos; however, I am finding that there are so many uses of the types of logos the book mentions that they are worth pointing out.
MAXIM
There are several examples of what I would consider to be maxims throughout the text, including:
- “God’s will!”
- “Old men forget”
- “This story shall the good man teach his son.”
I think these are examples of maxims because, as the book defines, maxims are “wise sayings or proverbs that are generally accepted by the rhetorician’s community.” (182)
ENTHYMEME
The text also provides a great example of an enthymeme:
“For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother….”
The enthymeme would break down as follows:
Brothers shed blood together
We will shed blood together today
We will be brothers
I think a second example of an enthymeme can be found early in the speech when Shakespeare writes,
“The fewer men, the greater share of honor.”
The enthymeme would break down to (I think?):
We are doing an honorable act
There is a certain amount of honor that will be bestowed upon the men fighting
The less men fighting, the more honorable those fighting will be
Even if this is not an example of an enthymeme, it would still be an example of logos because it is rational.
I apologize for the short blog, but I am really struggling with what to write without summarizing the reading or babbling.
In ENGL 470, we were given an excerpt from Shakespear’s Henry V. The excerpt was of Henry V’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech. (You Tube and Text.)
And told to go through it to find the different uses of ethos, pathos, and logos; however, I am finding that there are so many uses of the types of logos the book mentions that they are worth pointing out.
MAXIM
There are several examples of what I would consider to be maxims throughout the text, including:
- “God’s will!”
- “Old men forget”
- “This story shall the good man teach his son.”
I think these are examples of maxims because, as the book defines, maxims are “wise sayings or proverbs that are generally accepted by the rhetorician’s community.” (182)
ENTHYMEME
The text also provides a great example of an enthymeme:
“For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother….”
The enthymeme would break down as follows:
Brothers shed blood together
We will shed blood together today
We will be brothers
I think a second example of an enthymeme can be found early in the speech when Shakespeare writes,
“The fewer men, the greater share of honor.”
The enthymeme would break down to (I think?):
We are doing an honorable act
There is a certain amount of honor that will be bestowed upon the men fighting
The less men fighting, the more honorable those fighting will be
Even if this is not an example of an enthymeme, it would still be an example of logos because it is rational.
I apologize for the short blog, but I am really struggling with what to write without summarizing the reading or babbling.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Audience, Logical Proof and the Body of an Argument
After reading this week’s chapter, I was struck with the relationship between audience and the body of an argument. What really captivated my interest was how much power an audience had over the body of an argument and how influential the audience was to the kind(s) of logical proof that a debater would utilize. In other words, the audience dictates whether the orator will use enthymemes, maxims, similar (or contrary) examples, an analogy, a fictional or historical example or a rhetorical example. One could even argue that the situation is just as important. However, I believe that every audience is situational, since they are gathered for a particular reason and thus, the audience members matter more because they are the ones who will remember it, pass the message forth (either by writing or speaking about it) and they are the ones that the speaker addresses the message to. In this blog, I will try and elaborate on this point.
Last week, we talked about getting to the heart of the matter and how we must move from general overstatements to specific examples to support claims. This week’s chapter supports this idea and focuses on the part of a speech (argument) were it matters must, the “body”. The chapter discusses how the introduction and conclusion are to move from general to specific or specific to general but the major area of argument, the body, should be specialized and resort to certain logical proof(s) that appeal to one’s audience. After all, “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes… Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (Crowley and Hawhee 158). The whole point of writing and debating is to express (or communicate) a particular perspective and in order to communicate that point there needs to be audience. Thus, it is vital to any speaker or writer to know the workings of his or her audience in order to use appropriate examples which will allow the audience to understand the perspective and then to decide whether to reject or accept it.
Crowley and Hawhee discuss enthymemes at great length and they believe that enthymemes (which can be a bumper sticker, billboard, poster, etc.) are only as powerful as its audience acceptance of the message. They write that “Whether this argument is convincing depends upon whether audiences think the examples are actually particulars that fit into the class asserted in the conclusion” (167). Basically, this statement supports the idea that a person who will write or speak an enthymeme must know his or her audience if he or she wishes for the successful spread of his or her idea. Enthymemes are useful for political purposes because “they [enthymemes] are based in community beliefs” (170). Thus, if you understand that your audience is politically bent this way versus that way, you will use certain known enthymemes as examples to establish your points. Crowley and Hawhee support this idea when they state “Rather, an enthymeme may contain as many premises as are needed to secure the audience’s belief in the conclusion” (171). Hence, enthymemes are a perfect example of how much power an audience has over a rhetor’s use of proof in his or her speech. In the case of enthymemes, the audience will dictate not only which ones are utilized (political, etc.) but the audience will also influence the frequency and acceptance of these types of proofs.
The next example of logical proof, rhetorical instances, also manifest the power of the audience over the rhetor. Both authors argue that “an example adduces ‘some past action real or assumed which may serve to persuade the audience of the truth of the point which we are trying to make’” (171). A debater that uses rhetorical instances is going to persuade an audience to remember the event that they all shared and then he or she will connect with the audience’s emotions surrounding this event in order to either get something passed or not passed. The best example, I can come up with is that of the closing remarks that lawyers make to a jury. In these last moments, before the jury deliberates and votes on either a guilty or not guilty verdict, each lawyer recalls the event and tries to connect with the audience’s emotions so that his or her point is remembered. Crowley and Hawhee write that “A rhetor who uses examples is reasoning only from part to part, or like to like, or like to unlike” and that these “examples are persuasive because they are specific… they call up vivid memories of something the audience has experienced” (172). Once again, the audience determines whether rhetorical (or even historical or fictional examples for that matter) are utilized and if so, which one and what emotions will the rhetor try to associate with.
Analogies, similar and contrary examples, maxims and signs also are deeply rooted items within an audience. For example, if an orator wants to apply a maxim to his or her point, he or she must make sure he or she has a correct and coherent understand of the community’s relationship to a particular maxim. After all, Crowley and Hawhee state that “Maxims are wise sayings or proverbs that are generally accepted by the rhetorician’s community” (182). Hence, the logical proof examples that one utilizes must coincide with the audience’s beliefs if a debater wishes to have his or her point heard, acknowledged and hopefully, accepted.
First off, I apologize for the length of this blog. I really enjoyed this chapter and am excited for this week’s discussion. This chapter had so much to say about building up the body of an argument and how one goes about doing it. As I said in the introduction, I was amazed at how much power a particular audience has over the content (examples) of a speech, debate, etc. I really cannot wait for Thursday night’s class.
Last week, we talked about getting to the heart of the matter and how we must move from general overstatements to specific examples to support claims. This week’s chapter supports this idea and focuses on the part of a speech (argument) were it matters must, the “body”. The chapter discusses how the introduction and conclusion are to move from general to specific or specific to general but the major area of argument, the body, should be specialized and resort to certain logical proof(s) that appeal to one’s audience. After all, “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes… Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (Crowley and Hawhee 158). The whole point of writing and debating is to express (or communicate) a particular perspective and in order to communicate that point there needs to be audience. Thus, it is vital to any speaker or writer to know the workings of his or her audience in order to use appropriate examples which will allow the audience to understand the perspective and then to decide whether to reject or accept it.
Crowley and Hawhee discuss enthymemes at great length and they believe that enthymemes (which can be a bumper sticker, billboard, poster, etc.) are only as powerful as its audience acceptance of the message. They write that “Whether this argument is convincing depends upon whether audiences think the examples are actually particulars that fit into the class asserted in the conclusion” (167). Basically, this statement supports the idea that a person who will write or speak an enthymeme must know his or her audience if he or she wishes for the successful spread of his or her idea. Enthymemes are useful for political purposes because “they [enthymemes] are based in community beliefs” (170). Thus, if you understand that your audience is politically bent this way versus that way, you will use certain known enthymemes as examples to establish your points. Crowley and Hawhee support this idea when they state “Rather, an enthymeme may contain as many premises as are needed to secure the audience’s belief in the conclusion” (171). Hence, enthymemes are a perfect example of how much power an audience has over a rhetor’s use of proof in his or her speech. In the case of enthymemes, the audience will dictate not only which ones are utilized (political, etc.) but the audience will also influence the frequency and acceptance of these types of proofs.
The next example of logical proof, rhetorical instances, also manifest the power of the audience over the rhetor. Both authors argue that “an example adduces ‘some past action real or assumed which may serve to persuade the audience of the truth of the point which we are trying to make’” (171). A debater that uses rhetorical instances is going to persuade an audience to remember the event that they all shared and then he or she will connect with the audience’s emotions surrounding this event in order to either get something passed or not passed. The best example, I can come up with is that of the closing remarks that lawyers make to a jury. In these last moments, before the jury deliberates and votes on either a guilty or not guilty verdict, each lawyer recalls the event and tries to connect with the audience’s emotions so that his or her point is remembered. Crowley and Hawhee write that “A rhetor who uses examples is reasoning only from part to part, or like to like, or like to unlike” and that these “examples are persuasive because they are specific… they call up vivid memories of something the audience has experienced” (172). Once again, the audience determines whether rhetorical (or even historical or fictional examples for that matter) are utilized and if so, which one and what emotions will the rhetor try to associate with.
Analogies, similar and contrary examples, maxims and signs also are deeply rooted items within an audience. For example, if an orator wants to apply a maxim to his or her point, he or she must make sure he or she has a correct and coherent understand of the community’s relationship to a particular maxim. After all, Crowley and Hawhee state that “Maxims are wise sayings or proverbs that are generally accepted by the rhetorician’s community” (182). Hence, the logical proof examples that one utilizes must coincide with the audience’s beliefs if a debater wishes to have his or her point heard, acknowledged and hopefully, accepted.
First off, I apologize for the length of this blog. I really enjoyed this chapter and am excited for this week’s discussion. This chapter had so much to say about building up the body of an argument and how one goes about doing it. As I said in the introduction, I was amazed at how much power a particular audience has over the content (examples) of a speech, debate, etc. I really cannot wait for Thursday night’s class.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)