English 505 – Course Notes
Session Five
n Aristotle
n The
son of the court physician of Macedonia to the north of Greece
n As
such, he was trained as a field biologist
n Expert
at observation
n Aristotle
n Observed
and described all living and non-living things
n And
classifying such data for the use of others
n Unlike
modern scientists, his investigations were not limited to botany or zoology
n Aristotle
n Instead,
he took the whole Greek world as his laboratory
n Thus,
we find works from Aristotle on law, political science, ethics,
drama, etc.
n Aristotle
n He
probably wouldn’t have seen the same distinctions we see
n Every
subject to which Athenians turned their attention to received his diligent
attention
n Aristotle
n Among
these was rhetoric
n Earlier
works on rhetoric, A maintained, dealt only with part
of the field
n They
concerned themselves with irrelevant appeals to the emotions of a jury
n Aristotle
n While
neglecting reason in public discourse
n They
(the Sophists) prescribed how a speech should be organized but ignored
the speaker’s role in creating proof
n Aristotle
n Rhetoric,
in A’s opinion, has an important four-fold function:
n 1.
To uphold truth and justice and play
down their opposites
n Aristotle
n 2.
To teach in a way suitable to a popular audience
n 3.
To analyze both sides of a question
n 4.
To enable one to defend oneself
n Aristotle
n Viewed
from this perspective, rhetoric is a moral but practical art
grounded in probability or the contingent nature of things
n Aristotle
n A’s
analytical approach to rhetoric is most apparent in his definition of the term:
n “The
faculty of discovering in every case the available means of persuasion”
n Aristotle
n It
is not enough that a speaker conceive of a single approach to persuasion
n He
must examine all means available
n Aristotle
n Only
then would he be likely to choose the best course of action
n (Rather
than simply that which first comes to mind)
n (Sorry
Gorgias)
n Aristotle
n Although
they weren’t codified in a systematic way until much later, the Greeks
discussed each of the canons at various times
n Ethos
and Pathos
n Five
canons of rhetoric”
n 1.
Invention
n 2.
Arrangement
n 3.
Style
n 4.
Delivery
n 5.
Memory
n Ethos
and Pathos
n Invention
concerns:
n Finding and developing the subject
of rhetoric
n Identifying the issues
involved
n Creating arguments in
support of the rhetor’s position
n Finding proof to
support this position
n Ethos
and Pathos
n Generally,
invention is divided up into three areas:
n Stasis – The search for issues
n Proof – The support for claims
n Topoi – Common arguments the rhetor can summon in different situations
n Ethos
and Pathos
n We’ll
look at the ideas of stasis and topoi later
n Before
we look at proof, though, let’s consider the following questions:
n Ethos
and Pathos
n What
does the word “character” mean to you?
n Where
does “character” come from?
n What
role should it play in rhetoric?
n Ethos
and Pathos
n Proof:
rhetoric examines persuasion and persuasion must convince its listeners
n Thus
persuasion must use demonstrations, or proof
n Ethos
and Pathos
n Aristotle
apparently believed that those interested in persuasion must make ‘proof’ a
part of their lifestyle
n Aristotle
further divides proof into two categories: Atechnic
(inartistic) and entechnic (artistic)
n Ethos
and Pathos
n One
must use the former to invent the latter
n In
other words, atechnic (inartistic) proof is given by
the situation and can only be used by the rhetor,
not created by the rhetor
n Ethos
and Pathos
n The
rhetor can, however, generate three additional kinds
of (entechnic; artistic) proof
n Ethos
– the character of the speaker
n Pathos
– emotions
n Logos
– the argument itself
n Ethos
n Ethos
is very important because audiences judge not only the argument presented, but
the speaker as well
n Felt
that ethos always manifests itself to listeners or readers, whether a rhetor is aware or not
n Ethos
n These
are proofs that rely on a rhetor’s personality
or reputation
n Character
(for ancient Greeks): the pattern of behavior or personality found in an individual
or group
n Moral
strength
n Ethos
n Self-discipline
n Fortitude
n A
good reputation
n Some
Greeks felt that a rhetor’s ability to persuade was
connected to his or her moral habits
n Ethos
n Character
could be invented by means of habitual practice
n But,
it also referred to a community’s assessment of a person’s habitual
practices
n Ethos
n Thus,
a person’s individual character had as much to do with the community’s
perception of his actions as it did with actual behavior
n We
think of character as being fairly stable
n Ethos
n They
thought of character as being constructed not by what happened to the person
but by the moral practices in which they habitually engaged
n Thus,
ethos was not finally given by nature
n Ethos
n But
was developed by habit (hexis)
n It
was important, therefore, for parents and teachers not only to provide children
with examples of good behavior
n Ethos
n But
to insist that young persons practice habits that
imprinted their characters with virtues rather than vices
n Since
they considered characters to be shaped by practices, it was malleable
n Ethos
n (Within
limits) one could become any sort of person he or she wished to be
n Simply
by engaging in the practices that produced that sort of character
n Ethos
n It
followed then that playing the roles of respectable characters enhanced
one’s chances of developing a respectable character
n Ethos
n The
upshot: A was not so concerned about the way that rhetors
lived as he was about the appearance of character that a rhetor presented in his or her discourse
n (Sorry
Plato)
n Ethos
n Aristotle
recognized two kinds of ethical proof: invented and situated
n Invented
ethos – rhetors can invent a character
suitable to an occasion
n Ethos
n Invented
ethos
n Especially
important with big audiences who would naturally not know the rhetor personally
n The
rhetor must construct a character for themselves
n Ethos
n For
A, this was especially important where the facts or arguments were in doubt
n People,
he felt, tend to believe rhetors who either have a reputation
for fair-mindedness
n Ethos
n Or
who create an ethos that makes them seem fair-minded
n Three
qualities are necessary:
n Phronesis
– practical wisdom
n They
must seem to be intelligent by demonstrating the they are well-informed
about issues
n Ethos
n Arete
–virtue
n They
must be of good moral character
n They
can project this image by describing themselves or others as moral persons
n Ethos
n Can
refrain from the use of misleading or fallacious arguments
n Eunoia
– good will
n They
must possess good will toward their audiences
n Ethos
n They
can do this by presenting the information and arguments that audiences require
in order to understand the rhetorical situation
n Ethos
n So
how can you demonstrate intelligence?
n You
can:
n Use language that suggests that you are an “insider”
n Describe
your qualifications
n Ethos
n Share
an anecdote that indicates that you have experience or knowledge in a
particular area
n Ethos
n How
can you establish good character?
n You
can:
n Weaken
charges or suspicions that have been cast on your character
n Ethos
n Cite
approval of your character from respected authorities (kind of like a
letter of reference)
n Refrain
from the use of unfair discursive tactics (faulty reasoning,
non-representative evidence, threats, name-calling)
n Ethos
n How
can you establish good will?
n You
can:
n Carefully
consider what listeners need to know about the issue at hand
n Ethos
n Supply
any necessary information that audiences might not have at hand, but not too
much (think movie review)
n Voice
also plays a role
n Ethos
n A
rhetor can use certain stylistic choices that narrow
or widen the rhetorical distance between themselves and their audiences
n Grammatical
person: I vs. he/she/it
n Present
tense vs. past tense
n Ethos
n Qualifiers:
some, most, virtually
n Situated
Ethos
n Rhetoric
is embedded in social context
n Distance:
the relative social standing of participants can affect a rhetor’s
persuasiveness
n Ethos
n Power:
n Who
controls channels of communication
n Influences
over sources of information
n Access
to powerful people
n Ethos
n Charisma
n How
well do the people in the rhetorical situation like each other?
n Aristotle
also saw three possible ways in which rhetors could
make ethical mistakes
n Ethos
n 1.
They could be so inexperienced or so uninformed that they simply
don’t draw the right conclusions
n Ethos
n 2.
Even though they may know the right answer, they may hide it from
audiences because of some character flaw
n 3.
They may not care about the people they represent, so they don’t give
good advice
n Pathos
n Before
we turn to pathos, let’s consider the following questions:
n What
does the word “emotion” mean to you?
n What
role should “emotion” play in rhetoric?
n Pathos
n For
ancient Greeks, pathos meant “emotion”
n But
also “suffering” and “experience”
n Reason
was associated with the mind
n Emotions
with the body
n Pathos
n Aristotle
believed that a speaker should know about his or her audience so as to
effectively use an appeal to emotion
n Instead
of knowing an abstract idea such as the “soul”
n Pathos
n A
believed that effective speakers understood the audience’s “emotions”
n This
is based, however, on the assumption that human beings share similar
kinds of emotional responses to events
n Pathos
n For
examples – mothers and fathers weep for lost sons/daughters
n There
is the implicit assumption that people who live in the same community
share similar emotional responses
n Pathos
n Therefore,
he treated emotions as a way of knowing
n It
can therefore be associated with intellectual processes rather than with
bodily responses
n IOW,
emotions hold heuristic potential (helps you discover)
n Pathos
n Aristotle
believed that when people experience emotions such as anger, pity or fear, they
enter new states of mind in which they see things differently
n (seeing something in a new light)
n Pathos
n Emotions,
however, should not be confused with “appetites” (pleasure/pain) or “virtues”
(justice/goodness)
n Pathos
n Aristotle
argued that three questions regarding the emotions must be answered:
n 1.
What is their state of mind?
n Audiences
bring certain emotional states of mind to a rhetorical situation
n Pathos
n Rhetors
need to decide whether this state of mind is conducive to the acceptance of
their proposition
n If
not, need to change the state of mind first
n Pathos
n 2.
Against whom are the emotions directed?
n Who
can excite these emotions?
n 3.
For what reasons do people feel the way
they do?
n Who/what
made you angry
n Pathos
n Aristotle
felt that without knowing all three of these things, it would be impossible to
connect emotionally with the audience
n To
compose pathetic proofs, you can use:
n Pathos
n Enargeia:
rhetors picture events so vividly that they seem to
actually be taking place before the audience’s eyes
n Emotion-laden
words (patriot)
n Honorific
language (gutsy)
n Pejorative
language (flawed)
n Logos
Revisited
n Aristotle
taught that in each case of reasoning, the arguer began with a statement called
a premise
n Premises
were then combined with other premises in order to reach a conclusion
n Logos
Revisited
n Arguers
can insure that their arguments are valid (that is, correctly reasoned), if
they observe formal rules or arrangements of the premises
n Logos
Revisited
n Conclusions
reached by this means or reasoning are only true if their premises are true
n In
scientific demonstration, the premises of scientific argument must be able to
command belief without further support
n Logos
Revisited
n In
dialectal reasoning, the arguers are less certain about the truth of the
premises:
n The
premises are accepted by the majority of people
n Logos
Revisited
n Or
by those that are supposed to be especially wise
n In
rhetorical reasoning, premises are drawn from beliefs accepted by all, or most,
members of a community
n Logos
Revisited
n Many
rhetorical premises are so taken for granted that they are not articulated very
often
n These
are referred to as “commonplaces”
n Logos
Revisited
n The
difference then between scientific, dialectal, and rhetorical premises is not
the external criterion for truth
n But
rather the degree of belief awarded to them by the people who are
arguing about them
n Logos
Revisited
n Greek
rhetoricians called any kind of statement which predicts something about human
behavior a statement of probability (eikos)
n Probabilities
are not as reliable as certainties
n Logos
Revisited
n But
they are more reliable than chance
n They
differ from mathematical probabilities in that they are both:
n (a) more predictable and
n (b)
less easy to calculate
n Logos
Revisited
n For
example:
n Compare
the relative probability that you will:
n (1)
draw a winning poker hand
n Logos
Revisited
n (2)
to the relative probability that your parent, spouse, significant other will be
upset if you come home extremely late
n The
chances of drawing a winning hand are remote, but mathematically calculable
n Logos
Revisited
n The
chances that parents, spouse, significant other will be upset if you come home
very late are relatively greater than drawing a winning poker hand
n But
they can’t be calculated
n (too many variables)
n Logos
Revisited
n The
reason for the relative certainty of statements about probable human
action is that human behavior in general is predictable to some extent
n Logos
Revisited
n Since
rhetorical statements of probability represent the common opinion of humankind,
we ought to place a certain degree of trust in them
n Thus,
statements of probability are pieces of knowledge
n Logos
Revisited
n As
such, they are suitable premises for rhetorical proofs
n For
Aristotle, argument took place in language
n Arguers
placed premises in sequence in order to determine what could be learned
n Logos
Revisited
n Aristotle
taught his students how to reason from knowledge which was already given to
that which needed to be discovered
n Thus,
people who wish to discover knowledge in any field did so by placing premises
in useful relation to one another
n Logos
Revisited
n Deduction
(or reasoning) he called syllagismos
(syllogisms)–
n A
discussion in which certain things having been laid down
n Something
other than these things necessarily result through them
n Logos
Revisited
n A
famous example:
n All
people are mortal
n Socrates
is a person
n Therefore,
Socrates is mortal
n Logos
Revisited
n The
first statement is a general premise accepted by everyone
n This
is called the major premise
n The
second statement is a particular premise accepted by everyone
n Logos
Revisited
n This
premise is particular because it refers to only one person out of a class of
people
n This
is called the minor premise
n The
reasoner has moved from a generalization to
statements concerning a particular person
n Logos
Revisited
n Aristotle
assumed that premises did two kinds of work:
n (1)
they named classes of things
n (2)
and they named particulars
n A
class was anything grouped together because of a certain likeness or common
traits
n Logos
Revisited
n Syllogisms
worked in classical logic because they thought that the relations between
classes and particulars were a fundamental element of human thinking
n Logos
Revisited
n When
scientists make classes or categories, they like to know that it contains all
the members of the class completely
n Rhetors
were not so concerned that the members of a class be completely enumerated
n Logos
Revisited
n This
is because rhetorical classes are intended to be persuasive rather than mathematical
n Inductive
reasoning goes in the opposite direction – from particulars to universals
n Logos
Revisited
n The
skilled pilot is the best pilot
n The
skilled charioteer is the best charioteer
n Therefore,
the skilled man is the best man in any particular sphere
n Logos
Revisited
n Using
this logic, Aristotle invented four types of reasoning:
n 1)
Examples – paradeigma “model”
n A
rhetorical example is any particular which can be fitted under the heading of a
class
n Logos
Revisited
n It
represents the distinguishing features of that class
n Rhetorical
examples are persuasive because they are specific
n As
such, they call up vivid memories of something the audience has experienced
n Logos
Revisited
n This
effect works especially well if the rhetor gives
details which:
n Evoke
sensory impressions
n Mention
familiar sights
n Use
sounds, smells, tastes or tactile sensations
n Logos
Revisited
n Such
as:
n Historical
examples
n Fictional
examples
n Analogies
n Logos
Revisited
n 2)
Maxims
n Wise
sayings or proverbs which are generally
accepted by the rhetor’s community
n Ancient
maxims were often drawn from poetry or history
n Logos
Revisited
n Since,
in ancient times, literacy was not widespread, much of the popular wisdom was
contained in oral sayings
n Logos
Revisited
n 3)
Signs
n Physical
facts or real events, which usually
accompany some other state of affairs
n For
example, if someone has a fever, this is a sign of illness
n Logos
Revisited
n If
someone bears a scar, this is a sign of a previous injury
n If
the relationship between the sign and the inferred state of affairs always
exists, we have what Aristotle called an infallible sign (tekmerion)
n Logos
Revisited
n But
not all signs are infallible signs
n Like
examples, signs can be effective if they appeal to the daily experiences that
we share with members of the audience
n So
the trick seemed to be to argue that the sign was infallible
n Logos
Revisited
n 4)
Enthymemes
n In
dialectic and science, deductive arguments are called syllogisms
n In
rhetoric, enthymemes
n Logos
Revisited
n The
Aristotelian distinction seems largely to be one of context
n In
the case of syllogism - Tightly reasoned philosophical discourse
n In
the case of the enthymeme - Popular speech or writing with resulting
informality in the expression of argument
n Logos
Revisited
n Derived
from the word thymos “spirit” – the capacity whereby
people think and feel
n Ancient
Greeks located the thymos in the midsection of the
body
n Logos
Revisited
n Quite
literally, an enthymematic proof was supposed to grab you in the gut
n Generally,
major enthymematic premises represent commonsense beliefs about the way
people behave
n Logos
Revisited
n Rhetors
ordinarily use some widely held community belief as the major premise of their
argument
n Then
they apply that premise to the particular case in which they are interested
n Logos
Revisited
n An
enthymeme is a type of syllogism produced in the interaction between speaker
and audience
n The
audience supplies, through its own base of information, statements that help
form a speaker’s syllogism
n Logos
Revisited
n In
other words, when people use rhetoric, they don’t speak in tightly argued
syllogisms
n Instead,
they rely on the audience to provide some of the proof for what the speaker is
saying
n Logos
Revisited
n The
major premises of enthymemes are probabilities concerning human action
n (rather than certainties as in scientific demonstration)
n Logos
Revisited
n An
example:
n Major
premise: racist slurs directed against innocent people are offensive and out to
be punished
n (notice here that not all people believe this)
n Logos
Revisited
n Minor
premise: John stood outside the library and shouted racist epithets at people
who passed by
n Conclusion:
John engaged in offensive behavior and ought to be punished
n Logos
Revisited
n The
major premise is a rhetorical probability, since it is not certain that
everyone is offended by the use of racist slurs
n The
rhetor counts on the fact that most people accept
this premise
n Logos
Revisited
n The
enthymeme depends for its impact, therefore, on a number of community commonplaces
and attitudes
n Enthymemes
are powerful because they are based in community beliefs
n Logos
Revisited
n “Members
of the media should be objective”
n “In
America, if you work hard, you’ll get ahead and make a good living”
n “We
need nuclear weapons to prevent war”
n Logos
Revisited
n “The
United States must occasionally intervene in various parts of the world with
military power to stop communism and promote democracy”
n Logos
Revisited
n Because
they are powerful, whether the reasoning is sound or not often makes little
difference to the community’s acceptance of the argument
n Enthymemes
work when listeners participate in constructing the argument
n Logos
Revisited
n That
is, if their prior knowledge is part of the argument, they are inclined
to accept the entire argument if they are willing to accept the rhetor’s use of their common, prior knowledge
n Logos
Revisited
n For
this reason, enthymematic arguments do not always have to be spelled out
completely
n The
rhetor may actually purposefully omit premises
or even conclusions
n They
audience may actually enjoy supplying the missing premises
n Logos
Revisited
n They
may even be more readily persuaded by the argument if they have participated in
its construction
n In
modern times, the enthymeme is an abbreviated syllogism
n Logos
Revisited
n That
is, an argumentative statement that contains a conclusion and one of the premises,
the second premise being implied
n Logos
Revisited
n The
essential difference is that the syllogism leads to a necessary conclusion from
universally true premises
n But
the enthymeme leads to a tentative conclusion from probable premises
n Logos
Revisited
n An
example:
n “John
will fail his examination because he hasn’t studied”
n What
is the major premise that is implied?
n “People
who don’t study fail examinations”
n Logos
Revisited
n Notice
that this is only probable
n You
can pass an examination without studying
n (I
don’t recommend this method, however)
n Logos
Revisited
n How
about these? What is the missing premise?
n “He
must be a socialist because he advocates civil rights for minority groups”
n “He
couldn’t have killed his mother. He loved her.”
n Logos
Revisited
n An
actual example:
n “Much
as he tried to obscure it, on issue after issue, my opponent showed why he
earned the ranking of the most liberal member of the U. S. Senate”
n George
W. Bush (2004)
n Logos
Revisited
n What
is the unstated generalization?
n What
is the unstated conclusion?
n