“A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric”

After reading “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric” by George A. Kennedy, I realized that I agree with some of Kennedy’s views of rhetoric but not all of them. For example, I agree that tropes and figures of speech in literature are rhetorical devices and that rhetoric can be identified with the energy inherent in communication. However, I do not think that animals have their own rhetoric. There is no doubt animals communicate with one another in their own way, but I think rhetoric is something exclusive to humans. When I think of rhetoric, I think of argumentation, persuasion, and the use of language in a manipulative way. I just don’t think animals purposefully use their own verbal and nonverbal communication to exemplify rhetoric. I feel like Kennedy proves my point when he says “I have yet to encounter the term "rhetoric" in social biology.” Since my view of rhetoric concerning this subject was drastically different from Kennedy’s view, I decided to look up the definition of rhetoric. According to dictionary.com, rhetoric is…

1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including figures of speech.

3. the study of the effective use of language.

4. the ability to use language effectively.

5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.

6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.

8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.

I think one’s view regarding this subject is also dependant on whether or not he or she thinks that animals have their own languages. However, Kennedy states that “whether animals can be said to have languages is controversial.” Thoughts?

Damasio, Ch 1-4

Rene Descartes is known as the father of modern philosophy and is most well known for his quote, “I think, therefore, I am.” I love how the title, Descartes’ Error, refers to what we have learned from Descartes regarding mind/body dualism.

Chapters 1-4 of Descartes’ Error give a lot of insight into the relationships between emotion, reason, and the brain. However, this reading was very technical and made me feel like I was just learning about the brain all over again. I had difficulty writing this blog post because I felt as though I didn’t really have any insight with which I could wow readers. The chapters along with Gage and Elliot’s stories are very compelling and insightful alone. Gage and Elliot’s stories surprised me though because I had expected more damage to be done after experiencing such serious brain injuries. For example, any sudden violent movement, such as whiplash, or blow to the head can cause brain damage. Don’t get me wrong. What they experienced is very sad, but I feel as though things could have been much worse for them.

"Pathos and Katharsis in ‘Aristotelian’ Rhetoric: Some Implications"

On page three in “Pathos and Katharsis in ‘Aristotelian’ Rhetoric: Some Implications”, Walker begins to discuss the analogy Gorgias makes between medical katharsis and emotional katharsis. The analogy basically conveys that different drugs draw out different fluids from the body just as different speeches draw out different emotions. I am currently taking a course in ancient Greek medicine and, from what I have learned so far in this course, this analogy has a lot of truth to it. Ancient Greek medicine involves the belief that there are four humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) within the body. It was understood that these humors needed to be in balance in order to for someone to be in good health. Therefore, when someone was sick, it was believed that they needed to expel humors from the body in order to correct the imbalance by bleeding, throwing up, etc. It interests me how the Greeks seem to rely on this concept of forcing things out even concerning two completely different topics such as medicine and emotions.

Visual Analysis

This ad is about the dangers of texting and driving. I chose to rhetorically analyze this ad as I heavily support its message. The message of the ad is also conveyed in a simple, creative, and unique way that I have never seen before. The ad was created by a company called Vodafone, one of the world’s largest mobile communications companies. I found this ad online at www.adsoftheworld.com, an advertising archive and community. Given the context of the ad, the intended audience includes teenagers and young adults as well as their parents. The ad appeals to a younger generation as it utilizes commonly used abbreviations among youth today. The ad also appeals to their parents as the text at the bottom right encourages the audience to “make sure you and your teenagers stay safe on the road.” In addition, ads like this one always attract the attention of parents as they are constantly worrying about the dangers out in the world that their children are exposed to on a daily basis.

This ad provokes fear as the primary emotion, nervousness and disappointment as secondary emotions, and alarm, anxiety, uneasiness, and worry as tertiary emotions. Primarily, these emotions are provoked by the words. Each word has its own shadow, giving each word its own physical form and showing that each word carries its own danger along with it when typed by the driver. Each word with its own physical form gradually leads the viewer into the other lane and eventually to the accident at the power line pole. This progression catches the viewer’s attention and adds suspense. These emotions are also provoked by the trivial nature of the text message itself. Telling a friend that you have been invited to a party isn’t worth having an accident. Finally, the absence of people, cars, and the accident makes the viewer focus completely on the words as the driver would have done in this situation. This provokes the emotions listed as it recreates the immense distraction of texting for the viewer and, consequently, brings the viewer into the experience. The absence also makes the viewer think “what if?” Since the ad works, the exclusion of other things that could have raised the pathetic appeal of this ad demonstrates that the issue itself is powerful enough to stand on its own.

The ad is mainly aiming to educate the public about the issue of texting and driving. However, the ad also inspires people to change their behavior if they text and drive and inspires parents to talk to their children if they are drivers. The ad does this through its interpretation that ties the affect to the desire behavior. For viewers, the interpretation is that they don’t want that to happen to them or their loved ones. They don’t want to endanger the lives of innocent people, and they don’t want to get in an accident. Through this ad, viewers see the severity associated with texting and driving and that the importance of safety immensely outweighs any text message.

Aristotle’s analysis of the character of the young can be applied to the ad as the ad appeals to stereotypes of the young. However, the ad does not appeal to any other classifications or symbols that resonate with certain segments of the population. Aristotle states in chapter twelve of Rhetoric that “[the young’s] hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear, and the hopeful disposition creates confidence.” This analysis can be applied to the ad as teenagers have hopeful dispositions when they text and drive. These hopeful dispositions make them confident in their abilities and courageous enough to multi-task while driving. They often think that nothing like what is depicted within this ad will ever happen to them. The “expectation of good makes [them] confident.” As I thought of my own stereotypical characteristics of the young, I thought of carelessness. Aristotle does not mention anything about carelessness in Rhetoric, but this characteristic is clearly appealed to by this ad. Teenagers are often careless when they drive as they always think they have a good handle and assessment of their driving situation.

Texting and driving can be just as dangerous as drinking and driving. Therefore, the pathetic appeal of this ad is necessary in order to impact those who do text and drive.

Aristotle: Book 2, Ch 12-26

The first question I have is about chapter fifteen. I didn’t really understand what Aristotle meant by good birth. I know Aristotle stated that it “must be distinguished from nobility”, but I still wasn’t 100% sure what being well-born means. Does this mean you come from good genes or that your ancestors were exceptional/well known? Do people value this quality today?

In chapter sixteen, Aristotle mentions the saying of Simonides. In response to whether it is better to grow rich or wise, Simonides answers rich because “I see the wise men spending their days at the rich men’s doors.” I am curious as to what Aristotle’s answer would be to this question. Personally, I disagree with Simonides’ answer as I do not think that would be the fate of wise men. Wise men may not be born with money, but they have the potential to earn a great deal of money using their wisdom. However, I do agree with Aristotle that “the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool.” After reading this chapter, lottery winners automatically came to my mind. They are a perfect example of newly-enriched people that do not know how to handle a great deal of money. As a result, they usually end up worse off then they were before they won the lottery.

Aristotle: Book 2, Ch 1-11

Initially, I noticed in the reading that Aristotle pairs up opposite emotions as he defines and discusses them (anger vs. calm, friendship vs. enmity, etc.). This technique interests me as I do not know the reasoning behind it. My guess is that Aristotle was attempting to show the drastic differences between emotions by contrasting opposites.

Aristotle states that “fear is associated with the expectation that something destructive will happen to us, plainly nobody will be afraid who believes nothing can happen to him.” However, this description of the conditions under which people feel fear seems a bit inadequate to me. This description made me wonder how Aristotle would explain the fear associated with scary movies, spiders, etc. These are harmless things which do not make people “feel that they really are in danger of something,” and yet these things cause certain people to feel fear.

Aristotle also states that pity is “a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which we might expect to befall ourselves or some friends of ours, and moreover to befall us soon.” Aristotle’s discussion of pity made me think of the poster Professor Davis showed the class on the first day of classes. Considering my own feelings of pity towards the girl on the poster, I realized Aristotle really does accurately define pity and state the conditions under which people feel pity.