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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|