ARCS Ch 7

There are a few parts of Chapter 7 in ARCS that I found interesting. This chapter, titled, "Pathetic Proof" gave a new definition to pathos - pathetic. I hadn't ever thought that pathos could be associated with pathetic, but now I have learned that pathetic appeal can be one that just conjures up emotion in the audience - not only loathsome or sad.
Pathos gains strength in this chapter, and Aristotle is one ancient rhetor whose opinions on emotional appeals are taught. What I found interesting was the part where prejudices against emotion are used unfairly, for instance, "if you're emotional, you're irrational (171)" and how reasons associated with steady, tranquil behavior - stifling emotions. I feel that emotional appeals are portrayed a lot this way in the everyday arguments I see, and take part in, daily. I hadn't thought before that emotional appeals could also be used powerfully for advertising - "Just do it! (171)" appealing to peoples desire to succeed. Additionally,arguments with people you are closer with, that happen at home or with the people closest to you - will make the biggest emotional impact when using pathos. This can be largely seen through the example given explaining how proximity affects the intensity of emotions that they feel - for instance how climate change may not bring a large audience to immediate feeling fear because of the fact that its effects can't be seen or felt monumentally daily (177). Later in the text Aristotle's teachings speak to how emotions are great places to target in your audience - as often emotional changes develop into differences in people's judgements individually (175)".

Boethius

Although Boethius saw himself as a philosopher, he was a source of classical learning for medieval scholars, and his work reflects the "treatise of logic" (486, RT). In this passage Boethius titled, "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric", he begins by outlining the three species of rhetoric which are judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Subjects debated are largely of civil importance to cultures - and are shaped by the species they are categorized into.
     "when it seeks the ends of justice in a court of law, it becomes judicial; when it asks in an assembly what is useful or proper, then it is a deliberative act; and when it proclaims publicly what is good, the civil question becomes demonstrative rhetoric (489)."
This quotation explains this principle and how the type of argument and its kairos are determined by the species it's categorized into.
Boethius goes on to comment on the importance of rhetorics 5 parts (invention disposition, style, memory, delivery) and how a true rhetorician must utilize all these parts or they will be missing an important element of direction in their argument.

ARCS Ch 6

Ethos dominates the beginning of Chapter 6, and although I have heard of ethos before I found this definition to be new to me. Ethos can be described as the character assessed and determined of the speaker by their audience. How can speakers overcome this? Certainly this type of character assessment by your audience can be good if you have a good reputation, or are an expert in an issue, but what if you are speaking on a topic new to you? How can you overcome obstacles in the ethos that other people perceive of you? These are questions I found myself asking after reading about this. It shows the importance of research and knowledgeability required to be a good rhetorician - and I think that is really the most fundamental thing rhetoricians master. Someone can only become a good rhetorician by examining all the issues, and their stases - not to mention the sides of an issue as well. They ugh be open to conversation about an issue and be able to use all the information given to formulate the best outcome or truth out of an argument. None of this possible without being well versed on a topic, oand thorough in research - with this as a rhetoricians greatest strength they can be spared in less skilled areas like presentation or reputation, because real knowledge about a topic come across confident and intelligent.

ARCS Ch4

Chapter 5 of this text focused on logical appeals. Logical appeals are defined in four ways according to Aristotle; scientific demonstration, dialect, rhetoric, and false or contentious reasoning. Other than other characteristics about logical appeals and the types, one thing that interested me most was the definitions of 'premise'. I have found that premises seem to derail arguments the most in my daily life. I can recall many times where I say something in an argument and my audience disagrees with my initial claim or assumption - I find this to be one of the most difficult parts about meeting with opposing parties. Finding a common claim to agree on seems to be the key to argument resolution. I also found it interesting how powerful comparing two alike situations can be in persuading audiences in an argument. These types of logical appeals seem to appeals to the ethos as well - applying your experiences to others can be a convincing way of relating personal experiences and persuading other people through this type of emotional connection. Analogies like hypothetical comparisons is one way Aristotle suggests to logically appeal (133).

ARCS Ch 4, Aristotle

While reading, I found the distinction between commonplaces and topics to be important and worth noting. Commonplaces represent the common cultural belief of the social construction available; topics represent the more traditional definition that is the point or category at which people are speaking about. Three common topics discussed by Aristotle were listed as; 1. Whether a thing has or hasn't occurred? Whether a thing will or will not occur? 2. Whether a thing is greater or smaller than another thing? 3. What is (and is not) possible?
These questions are interesting and are very helpful in directing your rhetorical analysis. It is obviously important to discover the stases at which your topic is held, and I feel that reading this - after last chapter which was all about questions - comes as a good follow up. Aristotle is similar to the type of rhetor that I feel I am in the fact that he uses and prefers logical proofs. I find these proofs to be very persuasive when arguing a topic. Finding the 'topic' of an argument is similar in many ways to the point of stases discussed in my last post. This is one thing I found confusing, how are these two things different? Common topics include those that many issues may disagree over, such as possible vs impossible, greater degree vs lesser degree, and past vs future. These are all common points in many current arguments where people are arguing about these points of stases.
Commonplaces have a way of inherently becoming ideologies in a culture (96). The point that many different members of a community seem to agree on a commonplace makes it an ideology in definition. Ideologies become a part of the culture, and although they may change they are enveloped in general by the culture that started them. From then on, the apparent ideologies are then influencing future ideas, speeches, and new ideologies by the vey fact that an ideology is seemingly engraved then into the culture. By becoming part of the commonly accepted culture it becomes an influencing factor in developing cultural norms and commonplaces.

ARCS Ch3 & Aristotle Imitato discussion

While preparing for this reading post, I thought I would also include some of the information on the essay and ancient rhetor I chose for the Imitatos. I have chosen one essay by Aristotle, that is a part of his writing taken from the piece, "Rhetoric". I chose this rhetor because earlier in the text, I remember reading that he is one rhetor who especially favors the persuasive law of pathos - logic or reason. This appealed particularly to myself because I feel that I value logic and evidence when persuading others in my writing. In his essay he pay special attention to the rhetorical differences between the socially constructed roles of different people such as a judge and lawmaker. He also explains that when using rhetoric to strengthen persuasive arguments that anyone can be involved, and is unbeknownst to them in their daily life. People are often caught defending their actions or maintaining their views among regular conversations- making them rhetors of everyday life (179, RT). Aristotle makes note that it is always easier to believe in and 'back-up' beliefs that we already believe in or favor, which can be used to a rhetor's advantage.
While reading through the 3rd chapter of our ARCS readings, I was pleasantly surprised at the chapter's main focus - questions. Questions are the key to knowledge and without them a true rhetor would be without his infantry. Throughout the text I learned that there are four main types of the most important questions to ask when trying to come to stases. These four questions narrow down the stases of an argument. At which point do both sides disagree? Do they disagree on the conjecture, definition, quality, or policy? For example, some lawmakers are disputing whether GMO modified foods should be labeled in grocery stores for consumers to see. Do GMO labels exist? They can, yes. What kind of thing is labeling a GMO? It can be agreed that a GMO is a genetically-modified food, and by labeling them in stores it would become more parent to customers which foods are affected this way. The point of contention comes with the third question - Is it right or wrong (to label these GMOs in stores)? Here is where the two sides disagree, and bring voters in to decide - here by asking the four (but only needing  to ask up to the third) questions we have arrived at the stases of the argument, and form here a rhetor can gain more knowledge on the subject and the different angles to argue at this stases. It is most important for a rhetorician to ask questions and investigate arguments!

ARCS Ch.2; RT Intro to Part I, Gorgias, and Dissoi Logoi

While reading Chapter 2 of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students one of the first things I learned and made note of were the elements of a rhetorical situation which according to the text includes and issuer of discussion, and audience (and their relationship to the issue), a rhetor's reputation and a time and place. These elements comprise a multitude of different possible rhetorical situations, which leads to the topic of the "right rhetorical moment" (ARCS, 37-38). Kairos is defined as a moment in time at which you can make the most advantage of that situation - as that certain moment (ARCS, 38). While creating an argument there are many things to consider, in the power dynamics of an issue it is important to consider which arguments are being made by which people (arguments already established), and whether they receive more or less attention (ARCS, 41).
Another thing I found interesting was learning more about some of the individual ancient rhetors actual thoughts were. The Sophist Movement viewed that absolute knowledge was now available to humans. Plato rejected this, but the Sophists ability to see all sides of an argument aimed promote diversity and tolerance in society. Isocrates saw himself primarily as a teacher and had three main elements of success which were "natural talents, practice in varied situations, and instruction in general principles" (RT, 26). Reading further into the Rhetorical Tradition, I read one section that was particularly interesting to me. This section named Aspasia and Opportunities for Women informed about ancient times and the roles of women. They were far and few - and complimented as "not totally oppressed". Texts from any women at the time have not survived and are not even sure to exist, but it wasn't long before ancient Greek women could attend schools or hold public office (in wealthier families) (RT, 27).
Later, reading about Plato's struggle between real and false rhetoric at first confused me but ended up teaching me a lot. He criticizes false rhetoric for relying on "kairos", he says that only "determine[s] provisional truth or probable knowledge"(RT, 28). Aristotle was less concerned with the struggle between 'false' and 'true' knowledge, instead he defined three categories for rhetoric, as well as established that he personally felt the appeal to reason was the most important, and some even said he could appear to "prefer to conduct persuasion by reason alone" (RT, 31). I feel I most identify so far with how Aristotle approaches rhetoric. Reasoning, and appealing to logical appeals are strong ways to make a solid argument. It it difficult to negate logical reasoning, or facts backed up through "scientific demonstration" (RT, 31). This I found particularly interesting in that I feel that I value logical appeals when arguing a side too.