Dear Carlos,
You have my sincere apologies. Honestly. I should not have written in a way that would serve to make you angry rather than thoughtful. I feel the pathos.
I fear that I’ll make you angry again. I genuinely do not want to. I would like to be more thoughtful and less hurt myself. The dictionary definition that you sent felt like a jab to the solar plexus (can’t prove that—you’ll have to take it on my authority =). But with that on the table, help me understand.
As you point out, rhetoric employs ethos and pathos as well as logos. I get the feeling that you see ethos and pathos as the seeds of hyperbole and BS. I could be wrong, so you can correct me. As I see it, or to make a claim to authority, as Aristotle sees it, all three appeals are useful. Part of the reason that they are useful has to do with audience, and yes, audiences can be manipulated in self-serving ways just as they can be guided in helpful ways. As concerns audience, it’s critical to remember that logos also has its limits, because rhetoric is necessary when the facts are in dispute. And audiences can be manipulated by seeming facts. For example, in 2006, the facts suggested that buying a home in the US was a good investment. In 2009, we saw that the historical fact couldn’t be counted on as proof that would hold up in the future. Facts are not just facts.
I would argue that all three types of claims can be used by “the good person speaking” or by someone else. In any case, all three types of claims must be accompanied by proof—without proof, you don’t have much—so take my solar plexus with a grain of salt. I would also be remiss if I did not say that rhetoric historically has had its opponents as well as its proponents. I’m glad to read that you weren’t bashing rhetoric. It sure felt like it. I’ll chalk that up to my shallow reading (again, ouch). But here’s what you wrote to Enbo:
I think there are two distinct issues here:
1. The ability to master rhetoric
2. The ability to master and communicate rational thought
The text I quoted from you displays the concern of mastering rhetoric. In this particular case, to put it quite bluntly, the tools to market yourself. And by all means, you are right. If you don't market yourself no one is going to do that for you. And if you don't market yourself, no one is going to buy what you have for sale.
Now, marketing requires skills, but mostly it requires the ability and willingness to articulate hyperbole and to develop enticing narratives around your subject (in this case, your own persona), without the burden of truth or facts. This is also known as BS.
Maybe I should have slept on what I wrote earlier. Maybe this snippet from your earlier post is out of context. Maybe I should have spent more time with “in this particular case” and what that could imply. Maybe I should have read “two distinct issues” from a different perspective. Maybe then I’d see that the words, “this is also known as BS" doesn’t have a direct link to rhetoric.
Am I right in thinking that you believe a useful rhetoric is one devoid of pathos and ethos? And should Enbo and all of us try to eliminate those elements? I can’t agree with that, but I could agree with you that we need to identify the use of a device such as hyperbole and explain why it is not a useful rhetorical move.
Since you claim you weren’t bashing rhetoric, I'll believe that you don’t really think that the dictionary definition you sent fairly represents the discipline. ("speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is not completely honest or sincere”) (again, ouch)
And in all good will, I think that examining a common perspective about rhetoric as “mere rhetoric" (even if I have misread it as your perspective) is a helpful conversation. As this thread suggests, it enters into design practice.
I hope that I have not further misread you. You are right. Replying takes time and has to be balanced with other obligations. Now I need to go and sell some used cars. =)
My best to you.
Susan
Dear Susan,
I think what you are calling "rhetoric" is actually just the "logos" part (but at the same time you are pulling off a bit of ethos, in the form of the argument from authority).
Since rhetoric is your field, you are certainly aware of the dictionary definition:
"speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is not completely honest or sincere"
Anyway, I wasn't even bashing rhetoric per se, which I have nothing against. What I was calling BS was the common use marketeers make of rhetoric, which in general has much 'pathos', much 'ethos' and little 'logos'.
Fortunately, your reply illustrates my point about people usually having difficulties in being objective.
Please take another (closer) look at my post. I believe you misrepresent much of it (for rhetorical purposes?).
It took me hours to read the thread and write that post. I went to bed at 3am for this. It is very frustrating to get this kind of shallow reading and response. (can you feel the pathos?)
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
