Hello Everyone,
I'm new and will post an intro shortly, but I decided to jump right in.
James wrote:
_______________________
the three "ways of forming an argument" you mention-- logos, ethos, and
pathos-- should not be looked at as three separate entities or choices in
writing. i, and many others, usually refer to this "trinity" as the
rhetorical triangle. every argument (and i would argue any form of
communication) features all three of these qualities. the trick as a
writer is to be aware of you goal/purpose of writing and know who your
audience is (even though you may not be sure what choices you're going to
make to "achieve" your goal).
________________________
What IS the goal or purpose? If it is just to persuade, just to
manipulate, then I agree. Use the best method or combination thereof.
Is this the only possible purpose of rhetoric? How about the lecture as a
teaching tool?
What if the purpose is to further understanding rather than manipulation?
Wouldn't clarity of communication now take precedence over persuasion? It
seems like an appeal to ethos or pathos, which are appeals to fears,
injunctions, tradition, habit, etc, etc, defeat the purpose of honesty and
clarity necessary to see things as they are.
A side note: ethos above means to me a set of static value patterns ,or
rules to live by. There are varying levels of ethics, of course,
principles, etc, rather than just rules.
Which of the three methods has the potential to be the most dynamic, the
most context rather than content oriented? I would say reasoning, or
logos. Reasoning can be applied in a lot more instances and contextual
levels than pathos or even ethos as long as it IS reasoning, not
rationalizing. It is a more powerful tool, if the purpose is to see things
clearly.
What Plato didn't appreciate about the Sophists was their (apparent)
unscrupulous use of language to cloud understanding for personnel gain; to
develop a silver tongue and clever arguments for the express purpose of
taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of others. This is what I call a
"false" Sophist. A "true" Sophist is as honest in his / her pursuit of a
clear "understanding" of the nature of reality as Plato. Its just that
Plato was quite sure he had it right, was quite dogmatic, and quite static.
There are two issues here: dynamic / static and honesty / dishonesty. It
would help me to separate them. Maybe you all have figured this out long ago.
Mary, I agree with your intuition. Logos is the better bet, although it
can be used dishonestly like any other tool. To make a stronger point: if
the ONLY purpose of rhetoric is to convince another of my viewpoint by hook
or by crook, then rhetoric is detrimental to both myself and my audience,
for neither one of us will learn a thing. It is agreement without
comprehension. And, even then, the agreement could be feigned out of fear
or to seek approval.
Steve
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST