JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  May 2015

PHD-DESIGN May 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: How to teach argument ability to design students?

From:

Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 15 May 2015 13:53:58 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Dear Carlos,

When I read:
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.

I thought,  I am completely in agreement with you.

But I also read:
Most importantly, rhetoric is a tool for communication/persuasion. It is never a tool for reasoning.

I reason (in other words, I "think about something in a logical, sensible way”...now I’m going to my online dictionary) that the claim "rhetoric is never a tool for reasoning” contains an absolute that is difficult to prove and possible to question.

First, I need an essential ingredient. I need a situation where the facts are in dispute—one where emotion and credibility might play a role in being sensible. And I need to state that rhetoric and rational thought are different, while claiming that rhetoric can be used as a tool for reasoning. And further that argumentation that tends to focus more on back and forth interaction is also rhetoric.

I wish I could use the Lincoln/Douglas debates, but it’s been too long since I read Rhetoric and the Arts of Design (Kaufer, 1996). I fear that I’m about to step into the “insufficient depth” you describe. But I will mention that Kaufer took an interesting look at the Lincoln/Douglas debates as a rhetorical situation.

Without going back into that old reading, I think that I can still safely say that for slavery at the time, the facts were in dispute. And I wonder if, in order to make a sensible decision, the emotional aspect of the argument had to play a role. Logic alone might have led to an economically based outcome that would be better for the bottom line. Emotion complicates that economic perspective. Through emotion/emphathy, it becomes sensible to find that human slavery is wrong. That even in the best of situations, humans need to be able to determine their own lives even if that makes their lives measurably worse.

Through logic alone, other less sensible outcomes could be possible? Through a combination of logic and emotion we find our whole selves? And if we apply that to design, we find solutions that are well thought out through both our cognitive and affective selves?

Just a thought. And now I have to go to the laundromat. The dryer is broken. Yes, it makes logical sense that I would want dry fluffy towels instead of wet useless towels. But it’s also emotional sense. And honestly that’s why I'm getting off the chair instead of answering Terry’s post (that will be later). I want the family to be happy about the dry fluffy towels.

Susan




On May 13, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Carlos Pires <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

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]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager