In the first chapter of Ancient Rhetorics, Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee introduce us to a number of rhetorical concepts that we will be learning more about this quarter. Since we weren’t able to meet today as a class, I’d like to know what you found to be the most interesting or engaging idea about writing or rhetoric that you learned from this chapter. Take a moment to tell us what it was that you found to be new and interesting and then explain this concept in your own words. As you conclude your response, tell us how you think this idea might useful to you as a writer. Also, if you had any questions about this chapter—something you didn’t understand or were confused by—go ahead and post them here. We can use these questions to start class on Monday if we need to.
Post your response here as a comment before class on Monday. Aim for 250-350 words. I look forward to reading your response.
The idea that I found most interesting about rhetoric writing in this chapter was the “network of interpretation.” Ms. Crowley and Ms. Hawhee describe facts as statements that somebody has substantiated through experience or proved through research. However, these facts can be heavily influenced by an observers’ perspective. The physical facts are almost meaningless to individuals unless they are involved in a larger network of interpretation. A good example of this idea is fossils. Fossilized plants and animals are stony facts. These facts only hold relevance in the network of interpretation of geologists that are using them as evidence to support the theory of evolution, for example. Only because of its interpretation as a fossil rather than just any rock is the object useful or interesting. This is something that I have never taken into account in my own writing. In the future I will keep in mind that facts are neither interesting nor persuasive unless they are read within a network of interpretation. In order to persuade an audience, it is important to make the facts in the argument relevant and appealing.
ReplyDeleteThe most engaging idea from Chapter 1 was the definition of the three rhetorical proofs: logos, pathos, and ethos. Translated, these three proofs in English are logical, pathetic, and ethical proofs. Each of these proofs can appeal to different audiences, which is why it is crucial to identify what proof one can use. Logos, or logical proofs, are based in logic and reason. This proof is often paired with speech and voice, and would be the best used in argumentative propositions. Pathos is a proof that appeals to the emotions and feelings. I consider this as the weakest proof because the emotions of people are not always rooted in reason, and can often change, making the proof invalid. The last proof, ethos, is based on ethics and thus on a person’s personal ethics.
ReplyDeleteI found this to be interesting because I have never thought of identifying different types of proofs in arguments. Normally, I would select any proof to make a point for a paper. Now, I know that I must analyze the subject and find what type of proof would best fit the paper. I believe that by being able to identify a prompt and type of argument, I can make a better counter argument to sway an audience. For my future arguments, I will attempt to use more that are rooted in logic. Proof in logos seems to be the strongest since it is logical, and normally logic is universal. Ethos may be the next strongest, but ethics can be quite different between people. A proof that I will try to avoid will be pathos because it is not always logical or ethical.
One of the ideas that I found most interesting in the first chapter was the term ideology. I found this term interesting because I was able to apply it to many different instances in my life. I have encountered many ideologies and these ideologies often times create disputes between people with different views. An ideology is a way of thinking. It is a belief or interpretation of an event or way of life. These beliefs lead people to act in certain ways. In a way these beliefs create people’s behaviors. They create ones ethics and virtues. Ideologies do not just come into the mind, however. We are not born with ideologies. We grow into them. In our lives we are surrounded by many different views and opinions. These views and opinions then shape the way we think and interpret the world around us. The community in which we live shapes the way we think and creates our ideologies. This is not to say that these ideologies cannot be refuted. We have the power as individuals to decide for ourselves what we will choose to believe and what we will not. Though we can chose for ourselves, more often then not, communities will have similar views.
ReplyDeleteI found this to be interesting because it caused me to think about my own ideologies. I have some strong ideologies and others that I may question myself. By realizing that ideologies have a strong power to convince or persuade, I can use this tactic to my advantage. When writing, it is important to know who the targeted audience is. By knowing this, many important decisions and can be made. Ideologies are one way to target an audience. By using known ideologies, arguments can be created so that the audience will buy into the message that is being conveyed. When arguments go along with an audience’s views, morals and beliefs, they are more likely to listen and agree. I will use these tactics more often and look into the audience that I am trying to reach when I write in the future.
Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee’s section on opinions from Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students offers an interesting new perspective that opinions are more than just an individual feeling. The misconception that opinions are part of a person’s identity often creates tension between people in functioning society. But Crowley and Hawhee state that the point of rhetoric is actually to completely persuade people’s opinions in the opposite direction. Furthermore, opinions do not belong to one person. Opinions, in fact, belong to an entire group of people, and in this way opinions bring people together. One huge example of opinions belonging to groups of people would be political parties. There are many people in this country that identify with one political party or another, and in this way, people find a common ground. But this is not to say that people never change political parties. My own father changed from one extreme political party to the other recently. A person’s identity, however, does not change just because there is a change in opinion. So when my father changed political parties, his opinion changed, but his identity did not: he was and is still my father. But in modern-day society, there is so much emphasis on the individual that people usually are unaware that our opinions are also shared with other people in our world. In connection to rhetoricians, when used fairly, rhetorical reasoning (in relation to opinions) is no less legitimate than scientific reasoning because even scientific reasoning is rhetorical because experiments are a result of scientists with shared thoughts or opinions.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to my writing, this new perspective of opinions as more than individual will help me to develop holistic ideas that see the broader scheme of things rather than just the egotistical view. Hopefully seeing things from the perspective of a group rather than myself will appeal to a wider audience.
To me, the most interesting topic in the first chapter is the idea of rhetorical proof in the form of ethos, pathos and logos. These terms are used when describing the way an author uses writing to engage the reader and provide proof to an argument. In English these words mean ethical, pathetic and logical. Writers can use these methods in a way to build a personal voice to more clearly portray and project an idea to an intended audience. Using these different forms of rhetoric can engage a specific audience. For example, a logical based argument, or logos, may appeal to an academic, detail oriented audience while a pathetic based argument, or pathos, may appeal to an audience swayed by emotional testimonies.
ReplyDeleteI find this idea interesting because I personally have never thought of using different methods of proof in a piece of writing to engage a particular audience. In high school, I was never taught the distinction and was really only expected to write a fact based essay. I believe this new concept will help me tailor my writing to a specific audience. Using these techniques, my ideas may transfer in a more clear and concise manner in which the audience I intend to reach can understand.
The idea that I found most engaging about rhetoric writing in the chapter was the notion of a commonplace. Ms. Crowley and Ms. Hawhee say that a commonplace is any statement or bit of information that is shared by everyone in a group or community. The example the authors use to illustrate their definition is when Whitehouse spokesman Tony Fratto refers to Crow’s and David’s approach as “Hollywood histrionics”, which effectively diminishes their standpoint on global warming to a small part of a population, this then invokes a commonplace about out-of-touch Hollywood, and referring to their confrontation as a type of acting. This often happens in arguments because most people associate someone’s opinions with their identity. As a society we believe this because we think that people’s opinions come from their personal experiences and therefore they are only theirs. Moreover, because of this belief rhetoric often leads to personal attacks and allows the belief of opinion-as-identity to prevent rhetorical conversations.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is something that I used before in many of my writing pieces. This concept in writing has been very helpful with certain pieces of writing. I have used it for such pieces as many of my college admission essays, personal essays about my life and several projects for my English classes. For college it would be beneficial to help for creating great persuasive papers and self- reflection papers. I believe it would also help you advance you writing and writing skills. Most importantly it helps you relate and identify with the audience you are writing for.
In my opinion, the most interesting idea presented in the Chapter 1 of Ancient Rhetorics, is the concept of the differences between modern and ancient rhetoric. The book lists several. One is that in modern rhetoric, facts and testimony are the most important ways of defending a position. Whereas ancient teachers tend to stay along the lines of language arguments and community beliefs; effectively, they valued opinions as fact and modern writers deem opinions as virtually irrelevant unless supported thoroughly by fact.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference listed is that ancient rhetoricians tended to take each argument and piece of work in a time and place. Whereas modern rhetoricians tend to believe that certain aspects remain the same throughout literary history. The example cited in the book is that modern rhetoricians would believe that all works have a thesis and ancient rhetoricians would believe that statement is not necessarily always true.
Another difference listed is that modern rhetorics tend to believe that language in the argumentative sphere is limited. The only important use of language, according to moderns is its ability to convey facts. Ancients believed in the usage of tone and emphasis which can actually change the meaning of a sentence. For instance, a modern, would see the statement “I never said she stole the book” as a relay of a factual event. An ancient would tell the reader to say the statement aloud, putting emphasis on a different word each time and seeing how the meaning changes.
I find this concept very interesting as it relates deeply to my field of study. As a student in a fairly political realm, it is important for me to be able to state (and interpret) various facts and present them in such a manner as to accomplish a goal which I might have. I personally believe that factual statements are incredibly important to achieve a goal (such as a policy change) because people nowadays do not value straight opinion, but as the author says later in the chapter “Rhetors who rely only upon facts and testimony, then, place very serious limits on their persuasive potential…” (12). These ideas are useful as a writer because they inform the person of each type of argument and the various ways to employ each method, occasionally simultaneously in order to effectively present information in a convincing manner.
I thought the most interesting and important thing to take from chapter one was the definition of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. The author defines these as three essential chords to strike with readers to solicit interest and trust. While I have used these strategies throughout much of my life as a writer, I was unaware that they have been defined in a formal sense.
ReplyDeleteEthos is defined as basically showing moral character. I think that this is something that is extremely important to emphasize upon when writing. This is particularly true when writing a persuasive paper, as it’s important to build the reader’s respect so that the message is conveyed and received in a strong manner.
Pathos is defined as an appeal on readers’ emotions. This is another powerful tool to use when writing a persuasive paper. For instance, if I were writing a piece in support of increasing funding for cancer research I might write about a friend or family member’s brutal battle with the disease in order to gain sympathy and support for my goal.
Logos is defined as using reason and logic. This is a no brainer for persuasive papers. Beneath the “fluff” readers want to see some resemblance of logic that they can follow before they will support an author’s purpose. Logic is something that is normally simple to incorporate into any paper, but it’s particularly powerful when combined with pathos and logos.
To be honest I found the reader overly academic and drawn out. There were some interesting points but in general it was 29 pages that could have, and probably should have, easily been condensed into about 15. I found the most interesting part of the entire chapter to be the first two pages talking about the unwarranted negative stereotypes of the term “rhetoric”. The book does a good job at highlighting how people see the rhetoric as such a political term used to confuse and persuade people. The word often has such a negative stigma because it is seen as a condescending term, but the book points out that it really is just an efficient way to solve disputes in ancient Athens, and hopefully is still the same now. I also found the section on “networks of interpretations” to be interesting, talking about how all conversation is rooted in individuals past experiences. As far as the reading I thought everything was clear it was just long-winded
ReplyDeleteThe part I found most interesting form Chapter 1 was the three rhetorical proofs or terms: logos, pathos, and ethos or in English logical, pathetic, and ethical proofs. This is interesting because it categorizes writing into different groups and to how these groups appeal to a certain audience. So the proof you would use is different from one situation to another. Logos is the proof of logic or reason and is usually some sort of speech or the use of voice. Pathos is the proof of emotions and feelings. Lastly ethos is the proof of ethics based on that persons own personal beliefs and ethical standing. Pathos and ethos to me are both very subjective because you are trying to relate to someone who has the same strong moral, ethical, or emotional feeling on a subject. So these two seem to be not as strong of a choice as logos is. Logos is a way of presenting the facts and showing ones knowledge on a topic to sway or enlighten people through concrete evidence. Emotions, ethics, and morals of people can always change depending on a situation they are in. For example if someone can personally gain a lot from exploiting a certain emotion or taking the side of an ethical or moral situation, it is simply human nature to utilize this. This is interesting to me because it takes someone’s reasoning to write a certain way to a much deeper level. Be it personal gain or the feeling that it will be more widely accepted.
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter I found America’s concern for other people’s identities and not hurting their feelings very interesting. The reason that many people do not contest other people’s opinions is because we do not want to start confrontation. I was in intrigued because I have found that our society insists on everyone being so understanding of people’s differences that it is not acceptable to have an argument over topics which we find to be linked to one’s identity. Throughout history and in other cultures challenging opinions is a good thing whereas in the United States rhetoric is seen as propaganda and is frowned upon. In modern times opinions are not respected as much as facts. I think with people do not care as much about other people’s opinions because they are not as valued as a fact, and therefore it is not worth arguing over. If this is true I do not understand why people are so self conscious. If we do not value other people’s opinions then why do we care so much what they think of us?
ReplyDeleteI think that is concept will help me in my writing because I will question people more. Knowing that questioning people’s views on certain situations will improve my writing is something that I will exploit. By using ethos, pathos, and logos to challenge opinions on a topic I will come to the most reasonable answer.
I found Aristotle’s categorization of proofs in the form of ethos, pathos or logos to be the most interesting part of the first chapter of Ancient Rhetorics. Although these categories are new to me, the concept felt familiar to me because I would often think of how to appeal to my audience through my writing in different ways. The three kinds of proofs described are ethos, pathos, and logos. In English these words translate to ethical, pathetic, and logical. Ethos, or ethical proofs, uses the credibility or character of the author to persuade the audience. For example, a paper about mathematics that is written by an author with a Ph.D. in mathematics has a strong ethos appeal because the author is qualified and has a strong credibility in our culture. In pathos, or pathetic proofs, the author appeals to the audience through emotion. For example, a speech directed at juvenile delinquents can appeal strongly to the audience if the speaker shares an emotional experience that relates to criminal activity. Logos, or logical proofs, use reasoning to appeal to the audience. For instance, an editorial that has a logical argument followed by supporting facts or examples has a strong logos appeal because it provides the audience with evidence and reasoning.
ReplyDelete