Dear Susan,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
As we already took off the gloves off-list, I will elaborate on a couple of issues relevant to this thread.
1. Rhetoric
============
As you say, all aspects of rhetoric are useful. More precisely, they are all necessary.
Rhetoric can be seen exactly as "argument ability", which is what Enbo was talking about all along.
So, in short, one possible reply to the OP would be: "Teach them rhetoric".
[And that is what you have to do if you want your students to be able to persuade their parents that in choosing this career they are taking the first steps towards a bright and radiant future of prosperity and bliss.]
2. The ability to master and communicate rational thought
============
This relates to objectivity and systematicity.
It also relates to the 'logos' in rhetoric.
But this is not the same as rhetoric, because this is the ability to reason about that particular subject (the subject of the argument). Furthermore, despite how much or how little this might eventually look like 'logos', the latter is not detachable from the other components of rhetoric, nor it occurs before the exercise of rhetoric.
Most importantly, rhetoric is a tool for communication/persuasion. It is never a tool for reasoning.
In conclusion...
What I'm saying here is that though rhetoric is useful and important to master, it will be useless without the prior exercise of rational thinking (over the subject in question). Attempts at rhetoric over a subject the rhetor doesn't know in sufficient depth will fail, most of the time miserably, because without the proper logos your ethos and pathos will be laid bare.
And bare ethos and/or pathos actually amounts to BS. I'm sure Aristotle said that!
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
On 13/05/2015, at 19:48, Susan Hagan wrote:
-- snip ---
> . 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.
-- snip --
> 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.
-- snip --
> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|