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 At 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 (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 Aristotle

n Although they weren’t codified in a systematic way until much later, the Greeks discussed each of the canons are 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 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 an 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