9/22/2011

Despite what we like to think, our emotions guide most of our decisions, big or small. Humans are so emotionally driven that we cannot think without emotion, no matter how objective we try to be. Every single experience we face in our lives impacts all future experiences and choices, even if we don’t consciously realize it.

In rhetoric, the appeal to the emotions (or pathos, if you want the technical term) can be used to your advantage. Often emotional appeals are more influential than spouting off statistics, unless the way your state your statistics has an emotional connotation. Saying “number of dead babies” is infinitely more emotionally loaded than saying “infant mortality rate,” though you might want to consider your context and your audience when using such words. Appeals to the emotion can be useful, but careful that you’re also keeping a professional ethos so your argument are actually taken seriously rather than your audience being disgusted with you.

So hand in hand with pathos is the consideration of kairos. Your context, your audience and their maturity level all go into what kind of emotional appeals you can make, or if you can make explicit emotional appeals at all.

But keep in mind that emotions drive everything we do, even the smallest bit. The right placed word can be the difference between effective persuasion and having your argument be completely dismissed or ignored.

Emotions are powerful things, never to be forgotten.

9/20/11

On the trend of religion in the Medieval period of rhetoric, there was a belief in the separation of the soul and flesh. You are essentially a spirit occupying a body until you die, your earthly bonds released and you’re left to either float up to Heaven or be sucked down into Hell. Your destination post-mortem was determined by your earthly acts while you were still alive, of course following the rules of the Bible as said by the only person who could read and be trusted to give an “honest” interpretation of said Bible.

This brings in homiletics and hermeneutics again. Because those preaching in the Church were really the only ones who could read and they were essentially the governing and law-making force of the people (they were even above the royals), what they preached was what was believed to be in the Bible and it was followed like law. The Church took every advantage of everyone’s concern for the afterlives of their spiritual selves, even at one point claiming that, if you paid a certain sum for certain sins, you would be forgiven and be allowed into Heaven.

This of course led Martin Luther to stepping in and nailing his 95 Theses to the door, starting the Protestant movement (though that wasn’t his goal) and the loss of the trust of the Church.

Homiletics, through this, showed that it is in fact rhetoric. In its simplest definition, rhetoric is the art of persuasion. The Church was able to persuade, through their teachings, that their interpretation and exaggerations of the Bible were correct.

For September 15, 2011

Today’s reading marks the beginning of the Medieval period of rhetoric. At this time in world history, at least in the western world, the Church was really coming into being and was starting to really –ahem- show its power over the people. There was a big push for all to stop doing as the pagans do, and this included certain types of rhetoric.

In its place, hermeneutics and homiletics came into play, both pertaining to the interpretation and teaching –respectively – of the Bible. Both fall into rhetoric, arguably somewhere between didactic and ceremonial types.

Hermeneutics in the context of homiletics, that is, interpreting something scriptural so that is can be taught is much different than interpreting for your own understanding.

When you are teaching, you must always keep your audience in mind; their beliefs, values, and expectations, all go into consideration not only when you’re delivering your sermon, but also when you’re writing it.

This was seen in the movie Chocolat where the pastor, young and new to the trade, had to face the conflict between his love for Elvis and other things not so acceptable and what the Count and the rest of the town expected from him. As it was Lent and some woman had just opened a chocolate shop, one of the biggest temptations in a time for severe moderation and sacrifice, his sermons needed to shame the loveliness, severely advising against partaking or they’d all go to Hell. He didn’t preach how he personally interpreted the text, but rather how he interpreted the text in terms of his audiences expectations.

"As a Rule" - 09/13/11

Last night's reading discussed the importance of the use of "Logos" in your argument. Along with Pathos and Ethos, Aristotle proposed that it is one of the three kind of arguments or proofs that are convincing in rhetoric, as arguments found in the issue itself.

Aristotle mentioned that "as a rule" there is a higher chance your significant other is going to be upset about you coming home late than there is that you're going to get a winning hand at your poker night. However, the odds you get a winning hand can be mathematically predicted, whereas your significant other's emotional reactions cannot.

I just thought this was interesting. I know it's not the most important concept in the chapter, but it intrigued me that emotional odds are heavier than mathematical odds, even if they can't be equally or exactly predicted.

Commonplaces and Ideologies depend on the culture - For 09/08/11

Again, we touch on Kairos, but in a different way. Yes, there is a specific time and place for everything and you must seize the moment to have you argument be the most effective, but this time we're talking more about the literal setting of where you're rhetor-ing.

Commonplaces are like social norms, rules set for a society by those in the society and enforced, sometimes harshly. Go against the status quo and you might end up pretty sad and possibly shunned, in the harshest of punishments.

So, if you're an outsider and want to make an effective impact, you must take into account your audience and where your audience is coming from. While each person is different, every person in a society lives by the same basic principles and value systems. A little research can pay off.

This especially is important if you are running for a political office. You want your constituents to feel that you relate to them and you are the person they want representing them. By you knowing some of their particularities, they get more of a feeling that you're one of them and that you know them.

People like people who are like them.

There are two sides to every story: for September 6, 2011

I've lately been struggling with the idea that there are two sides to every story in my personal life, so it was fitting that this weekend's reading involved this hard-to-accept concept.

The Older Sophists, as it mentioned on page 73 in Ancient Rhetorics, held the belief that every argument had an equal and opposite counter argument, the idea of "dissoi logoi;" thus, two sides to every story.

The book went on to mention some ancient rhetor who discussed "that good and bad are the same, depending on circumstance and point of view" (73). This also stuck with me. We all have different moral compasses, acting in a way that we feel is best for us and coincides with that moral compass. Sometimes this lines up with others', but often it does not, hence disagreement, on all levels.

I don't mean to get heavy and controversial, but this where we get terrorist attacks. The terrorists acted in their evil ways because they believed that flying planes in the Twin Towers, killing thousands, and leaving a nation distraught was the best course of action. To them, it was a good thing. On the other side of the coin, there's the victims of this heinous act, victims who call it heinous and their actions evil. Our bad is their good.

The rhetor also mentioned that good and bad are different. "Things that are good for some people cannot be bad for them, too" (74). If you morally believe something is wrong, you're not going to do it, at least not in good conscience, unless you've convinced yourself that it is the right thing to do and have rationalized your actions.

However, ultimately, in this case, you will realize what you did was wrong because that is what you believed first.

I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that, but there you have it.