steve,
there are a couple of points i forgot to address in my last post.
Steve Marquis wrote:
> Is this the only possible purpose of rhetoric? How about the lecture as a
> teaching tool?
using aristotle's definition of rhetoric-- an ability, in each
particular case, to see the available means of persuasion-- along with
my own experience of language, yes, it is the only purpose of rhetoric
and communication in general. ALL communication is persuasive; it is
the level of persuasion that differs.
in terms of pedagogy, lecturing is regarded as one of the poorest
teaching tools around. but it, too, is persuasive, and uses rhetoric.
think of it this way: why should we believe the lecturer?
logos: she presents a formal analysis of the topic; it is systematic,
structured, and ordered
ethos: she has a phd; she is the chair of the department; she has
taught for 15 years; she defines her terms; she is patient with
student questions
pathos: she relates the topic to my life using an experience i am
familiar with; she compares new concepts that are unknown to me using
other concepts, objects, or experiences that are common
now oratory offers rhetorical elements that writing doesn't possess
(oration was the medium from which rhetoric sprang). but hopefully you
get the gist.
> What if the purpose is to further understanding rather than manipulation?
again, persuasion does not equal manipulation.
> Wouldn't clarity of communication now take precedence over persuasion?
clarity of communication is a vital element in order for communication
to be persuasive. maybe a better word to use is "convincing" rather
than "persuasive."
> 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.
read book 1, chs. 1-3 of aristotle's _on rhetoric_ translated by george
kennedy (not the actor from that bo derek movie!). these categories are
explained in his discussion of the pisteis (means of persuasion). i can
expand upon this if you'd like at a later date.
>
> 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.
after re-reading my first post, i didn't make it clear that when i say
ethos, i don't mean ethics. same etymology but different meaning.
before writing, an orator's ethos was partially judged upon his standing
in the agora. "is he an ethical man?" if not, don't believe him.
there is no denying that what many today call "integrity" plays a
significant role in how we experience communication (our president is a
prime example).
still, ethos-- the writer making herself appealing to the reader-- in
writing often has little to do with ethics. take this post for
example: as is, i make my self and my argument appealing through my use
of rhetoric and language; however, if you were to hear that i'm a serial
killer (which i'm not), i would lose credibility with most of my
audience. hope i've clarified my definition of ethos here and in
subsequent posts.
>
> 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.
but who is doing the "seeing"? you or your audience? most writing
teachers (myself included) would say both. but once you see your
argument "clearly" your audience needs to. you have to convince them
that your argument is "clear" by establishing the context of the subject
(the "content") in a logical format or organization. you use pathos and
ethos to buttress and enhance the logos. pathos and ethos are primarily
related to the relationship between the reader and writer (as shown
above). pure logos is just words. some would say that w/o pathos and
ethos, logos has no context because there is no relationship, no reason
to care, about the argument; the words are detached from the audience,
the world, reality.
> 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.
what do you base this information on? what/who is your source? plato?
if so, that's like asking (insert the name of your favorite right-wing
conservative congressperson here) if clinton is dishonest. your words
reveal a deep mistrust for the use of language, meaning rhetoric.
who are the greatest orators from the 20th century? billy graham, jfk,
churchill, mlk . . . hitler, mussolini, jim jones, mccarthy. what do
they all hold in common, meaning what made them great orators?
rhetoric. what divides the two groups? how rhetoric is used. is this
what you're trying to get at when you say true/false sophists?
i challenge you to explore why you consider the group historically known
as the "pre-socratics," or sophists, as being "false." who is informing
you? who is shaping your opinion? some consider aristotle the greatest
logician ever; some consider his use of logic (ie, pirsig's phaedrus) as
the wagon that drove "western" civilization down the wrong path. any
skill can be used for bad. but the sophists' "gain" from their use of
rhetoric is no different than what i and thousands of other rhetoric
instructos "gain." they were the first teachers who opened their
services to anyone who could afford them. what's the crime in that?
how is that "unscrupulous"?
> 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.
i say that anyone who holds any belief system-- be it a metaphysics, a
belief in a higher power, the government, science, etc.-- has his/her
own dogma and static beliefs-- the mythos. they are necessary. it's
when we become to entrenched in the mythos-- when it becomes THE reality
itself-- that we have trouble. rigidity is usually a curse. not to
sound too post-modern, but we create these realities to function in the
world. we all do this, collectively and individually.
additionally, sophists, if you believe pirsig and the fragments of
writing that exist from the sophists themeselves, believed in a truth
that was experiential, contextual, individual. that's why plato hated
them; it threatened his epistemology. so what did he do? employed
rhetoric in a malicious and calculating manner to persuade the world
that the sophists were bad people. i'd say, for the most part, he
fulfilled his purpose.
>
> 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.
i don't see these binaries as the real issue. people who use rhetoric
for "dishonest" means are not in pursuit of Quality. even their
rhetoric lacks Quality (some part of the rhetorical triangle is severely
faulty). that's not to say that any argument is perfect; pure Quality
that's experienced can't be communicated adequately because language and
rhetoric are symbolic, a degree removed from the direct experience. but
i digress.
i think this is where lila is important. i won't offer any wisdo from
it because it is not fresh in my mind as zmm is, and i'd just stick my
foot in my mouth even worse than i have already.
> 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.
i think i addressed this ad nauseum in my last post. again, your
language "by hook or by crook" shows your value rigidity on the
subject. you've already made up your mind that "persuasion" is
synonomous with "deception"-- the end justifies the means.
understanding, mediation, sharing is the key to rhetoric, not "win at
all costs." that's the zeitgeist. in such a framework, the only reason
to argue is to win. aruging, then, means to yell, fight, become
hostile, threaten . . . this is not Quality rhetoric (but it is
rhetorical itself).
jamie
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 - 16:03:08 BST