The main thing I learned from looking at rhetoric in terms of the top 100 speeches is the importance of appealing to all three facets (logos, ethos, and pathos). I consider myself a logical person, therefore a majority of my arguments thrive on logos, and lack ethos or pathos. Understanding the importance of using all three may be very helpful in my pursuit of many things.
For example, when interviewing for my first coaching position it will be beneficial to address all three elements. I can establish ethos by pointing out my playing experience from the age of 8, progressing through different levels and peaking at the Texas Tech club team. I can point out my coaching licenses and coaching experience. I typically do not enjoy establishing ethos in this fashion. I have a desire to move forward, and discuss the things I plan to do, but for many this experience is crucial to their decision.
I can establish pathos with possible stories of my triumphs over injuries, my decision to play high level soccer after a long four year hiatus, stories of kids I have enjoyed watching progress. Again, these are things I may have left out of the interview process hoping to focus solely on my knowledge, ethics, and plan. But many individuals enjoy hearing these types of stories and as long as they are kept short, they could be beneficial to my argumentation for a new hire.
Then I can appeal naturally to the logos. I can point out my desired formations, adaptations, game plans, and strategies. I can point out my ethical base, and desire to lead by example. I can point out my short-term and long-term goals, making analogies and comparisons to teams I have seen perform well. By appealing to all three facets of rhetoric rather than solely the logical, I can strengthen my argument and hopefully end up in a better situation.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Post 3: The class so far
So far this class has been pretty helpful. First, I really like the format Professor Garrison uses to get his points across. The short, focused lectures allow for a real digging into the main concepts as opposed to survey classes where you are responsible for so much you struggle to truly grasp any one thing. Discussions are usually informative, and with the use of blogs to get our ideas across to everyone we get to see the good ideas from everyone, even the individuals who do not like to talk in class. This format builds a good classroom, close to the democratic classroom we hinted at in class on Tuesday.
I think the argument that language is what separates us from animals, whether true or not, definitely stresses the importance of language. Whether language is the single factor that separates us is something that can still be debated, but I do not think we can argue against the importance of language. I like the idea that language is what took us away from settling arguments in a Darwinist, “the strong survive,” fashion. It brings power to individuals with a large mental capacity and the means to improve this capacity. Placing this power in an every day situation, such as settling an argument, as opposed to typical composition situations such as passing a Bill or writing a book, highlights its importance and should make it important to everyone.
The idea that all language is rhetoric is one that I think is helpful as well. I am still a little skeptical, but I can believe that all language may be rhetoric. I think bringing this idea into the composition classroom can serve to improve composition. Composition is very audience oriented. Who are you writing to? Knowing your audience and being conscious of the persuasive possibilities of your writing can only improve your writing. Understanding that even when you are not trying to persuade someone, you may very well be, can bring more focus to even the seemingly unimportant parts of compostion.
I think the argument that language is what separates us from animals, whether true or not, definitely stresses the importance of language. Whether language is the single factor that separates us is something that can still be debated, but I do not think we can argue against the importance of language. I like the idea that language is what took us away from settling arguments in a Darwinist, “the strong survive,” fashion. It brings power to individuals with a large mental capacity and the means to improve this capacity. Placing this power in an every day situation, such as settling an argument, as opposed to typical composition situations such as passing a Bill or writing a book, highlights its importance and should make it important to everyone.
The idea that all language is rhetoric is one that I think is helpful as well. I am still a little skeptical, but I can believe that all language may be rhetoric. I think bringing this idea into the composition classroom can serve to improve composition. Composition is very audience oriented. Who are you writing to? Knowing your audience and being conscious of the persuasive possibilities of your writing can only improve your writing. Understanding that even when you are not trying to persuade someone, you may very well be, can bring more focus to even the seemingly unimportant parts of compostion.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Rhetoric and Persuasion
When I initially heard the argument presented in class that all language is persuasion I was turned off to the idea. But through further thought I tend to agree with the notion. The main reason I was turned off to the idea is the abundance of negative connotation associated with the word ‘persuasion.’ When I hear the word ‘persuasion’ I think of pushy salesmen, crooked politicians, etc. But persuasion can be much more subtle. Speaking with the “proper” dialog persuades peers to look at the speaker as an educated individual. Speaking with slang can persuade (or fail to persuade: e.g. parents) someone to think of the speaker as hip. Simple statements like “I’m going to get the mail” can persuade someone to stick around for the short time you are gone or leave a note when they leave. These subtleties make the idea that all language is persuasion a little easier to swallow. Our use of the term ‘negotiation’ as an interchangeable word for ‘persuasion’ also makes this idea more plausible.
Now whether all language is persuasion or not, I think the idea, “Rhetoric is power,” is a useful place to begin a class on composition. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. I enjoyed the very simple demonstration in class that showed the shift of power from physical attributes to intellectual argumentation. By illustrating this shift and importance, you are setting up a base desire to grow based on necessity.
Now whether all language is persuasion or not, I think the idea, “Rhetoric is power,” is a useful place to begin a class on composition. We solve problems largely through communication. Understanding the power of language can motivate someone to better their communication skills. In order to get what you want, or get out of trouble, or advance through life, or build strong relationships, you need to be able to communicate. I enjoyed the very simple demonstration in class that showed the shift of power from physical attributes to intellectual argumentation. By illustrating this shift and importance, you are setting up a base desire to grow based on necessity.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Post 1: Language and Morality
First off I would like to say I have no desire to attack the argument presented in class. One thing I believe in is the complexity of the human condition. I believe there are many external, internal, spiritual, and possibly cosmic factors that influence each moment of each day of our lives. Due to a limited perspective, we can never truly know anything. We can hypothesize, have faith (though this is easier for some than others), prove things with the current scientific method (though this method has failed before and will again), but we never truly know. However, I also feel it is necessary and beneficial to know where you stand, and therefore have an opinion.
In the deductive reasoning model we discussed in class we put down the following algorithm:
If A.) Humans are genetically the same as animals.
And B). Animals are always immoral
Then C). Humans should therefore always be immoral.
My problem with this statement is in part B. I don’t think animals are always immoral. I don’t think all animals are inherently selfish. I think that even without language to scribe some moral code, some individuals would wake up with a desire to better things for other people. It is possible that language has shaped me in such a way that I cannot fathom myself with a completely selfish demeanor, but I cannot imagine it. If I had to hunt, kill, and prepare my own meat I would be a vegetarian. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the condition that would drive me to eat my own kin, or even someone else’s kin. This difficulty to imagine may stem from a lack of experience in the desired (required) condition, but it may not. I can’t know without the experience and it is an experience I am content to avoid.
I also find difficulty believing we are the only animals that use our depth of language. I think other animals may have patterns similarly deep that we simply don’t comprehend or even hear. We are discovering different ways animals communicate all the time. I found a link on national geographic about the depth of African elephants’ language. The link is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html.
In this article they talk about elephants using a low pitch we cannot understand. They talk about their use of nonverbal communication as well as their sounds and how it helps them maintain the relationships we hold so dear. What if we are just beginning to understand the depth of this language?
In the deductive reasoning model we discussed in class we put down the following algorithm:
If A.) Humans are genetically the same as animals.
And B). Animals are always immoral
Then C). Humans should therefore always be immoral.
My problem with this statement is in part B. I don’t think animals are always immoral. I don’t think all animals are inherently selfish. I think that even without language to scribe some moral code, some individuals would wake up with a desire to better things for other people. It is possible that language has shaped me in such a way that I cannot fathom myself with a completely selfish demeanor, but I cannot imagine it. If I had to hunt, kill, and prepare my own meat I would be a vegetarian. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the condition that would drive me to eat my own kin, or even someone else’s kin. This difficulty to imagine may stem from a lack of experience in the desired (required) condition, but it may not. I can’t know without the experience and it is an experience I am content to avoid.
I also find difficulty believing we are the only animals that use our depth of language. I think other animals may have patterns similarly deep that we simply don’t comprehend or even hear. We are discovering different ways animals communicate all the time. I found a link on national geographic about the depth of African elephants’ language. The link is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html.
In this article they talk about elephants using a low pitch we cannot understand. They talk about their use of nonverbal communication as well as their sounds and how it helps them maintain the relationships we hold so dear. What if we are just beginning to understand the depth of this language?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)