The Reappearance of the Number Three

The second major element of ethos is practical wisdom. When reading Thank Your for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs I realized how much I use this tool of rhetoric. To apply this you must know your audience so you know their problems, and what they want to hear as solutions. Also the audience has to believe that you know what is the right thing to do. Practical wisdom is not what one could call book smart, but more like life smart. I believe that usually people that use this tactic are leaders, so to all the people out there in the Leadership program go use it and win all you arguments. 

Have you ever seen Phineas and Ferb, if you have then you most know how Phineas always knows what to do. The first twenty seconds into this video, Phineas already said "I know what we are going to do today." This can be considered an example of practical wisdom. This character is someone that the audience can rely on because he is considered as "sufficiently knowledgeable to deal with the problem at hand. Ok, so let's get more into detail of what practical wisdom is all about. This element of ethos has three subcategories or tools that one can use as techniques (Oh Aristotle, once again with your number three). This tools are:

• Show off your experience
• Bend the rules
• Seem to take the middle course

So showing off your experience, so similar to bragging but at the same time so different. If in an argument or a conversation one starts to talk about past experiences, your point of view sound more credible. In this tool of ethos, the deliberative and demonstrative rhetoric is in use. When you talk about past experiences (demonstrative), the audience other than believing that you're more credible, they can also believe that due to your past when a similar situation is presented in the future (deliberative) you will know the right thing to do. After, "it is fine yo brag about experiences, rather than yourself" (68). 

The we can bend the rules, this tool is pretty straight forward, "if the rules don't apply, don't apply them" (68). This can be used in all types of life situations. For example, we can analyze how school tardies can "bend the rules." If some random person got late for the third time in a row, they would probably get a detention slip, but if that person were to be injured in the leg he/she would probably not get the detention slip because the rule would be bend for the handicapped. 

Last but not least we can "seem to take the middle course" which can make the audience believe your "adversary's postion is an extreme one" (69). This can be used in arguments, and after all most people prefer to make a decision that is between extremes, not too low or too high. For those who didn't understand, here is an example:

Me: Mom I want those Gucci Shoes.

Mom: No, they are two expensive.

Dad: Buy the one's in Exito, they are really cheap.

Me: But due to the price, they are bad quality.

Me: Why don't I get the Converse, they are not that expensive and they are good quality.

Dad: Ok, let's buy those.

As you can see, in this example the person trying to convince their parents (me) went with a decision that "lies midway between extremes"(69). I didn't buy the too expensive or the too cheap, but the shoes that lied in the middle. After all I got what I really wanted, because I never really desired the Gucci ones.

Oh, the beauty of rhetoric.

The "Virtues" of Rhetoric

It seems that the number three, is Aristotle’s favorite number. In Chapter 6 of the book Thank You for Arguing, by Jay Heinrichs we focused in one of the "Big Three", ethos. According to Aristotle ethos has three essential qualities: virtue, practical wisdom, and selfness or disinterest. In this chapter, Heinrichs focused mainly in virtue, and defined it. Virtue: "the audience believes you share their values" (56).

Virtue can be considered moral excellence, but it could also just an admirable quality. According to Heinrichs their are four different ways or tools of virtue:

• Brag
• Get a witness to brag for you
• Reveal a tactical flaw
• Switch sides when the powers that be do

Let's start by analyzing how bragging works towards your advantage in an argument. According to Heinrichs it is "the easiest way to show how great you are" (62), I have to agree with this opinion. Bragging is an easy thing to do, after all what can be easier that telling someone all your good qualities. I realized how much of bragging goes on in debates. For example we can see how the presidential candidates use this, they talk about all their accomplishment so the American citizens can see what positives things they've done for the country, and what they'll be able to do in the future once they get elected. Romney used this when he talked about all the positives things, and how he improved the education in Massachusetts. As for Obama he bragged of his accomplishment in his term  as president, so the American people can see how good it would be to have him for a second term. So people can see your "virtues,"you can also get someone else to brag for you. This is a useful, and if you think about it, it can be more useful than bragging yourself. Why? Well when you brag about yourself people might get the impression that you are very self-centered. 

Reveal a tactical flaw = getting the audience's sympathy. When you either reveal a weakness or show how much you have sacrifice it "shows your dedication to the audience's values" (63). Although this one ethos branches, you are at the same time using pathos. In the book they gave a good example of how Washington, the father of the USA, used this tactic.

Washington: "Forgive me, gentlemen, for my eyes have grown dim in the service of my country" (63).

The audience see how good of a person he is, and how much he cares about their country, therefore using ethos. Washington as the speaker is using ethos because he is referring to him as a person, but the pathos comes with the audience's reaction. Last but not least we can change our position through an argument. This is how Heinrichs says you should use this tactic: "When an argument is doomed to go against you, heartily support the other side" (64). I must go again with my presidential examples, and talk about how Romney and Obama supported each others opinion as the debate progressed. In the episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart right after the debate, he gave a perfect example of how they relied in each others opinions and supported them. If done right, this could be a very useful technique.

To all my readers, just wait a week so you can see what practical wisdom is all about.

Presidential Boxing Ring

What a heated up debate. President Obama vs Mitt Romney were a great example to show off rhetoric tactics. The use of ethos, logos, pathos, demonstrative, forensic, and deliberative were very present.

Logos was really dominant as the debate unraveled. It makes total sense that each candidates used this type of rhetoric. Well the citizens of the United States have to know the logic behind what each candidate is planning to do for the country."Part of the reason Lybia stand with us..." (Obama). As this part of the debate whent on, the President explained why Lybia stanted with the USA, which is clearely implied by the word "reason." This type of rhetoric was present in the arguments coming from both candidates.

Ethos was also a key element in the debate between the two candidates that whant to be the future President of the United States. Because after all, the people have to choose which of the candidates is going to be the president, and to do that they have to jude by character. One can say there are differet ways of using ethos while arguing. First of all you can be blaming someone for doing something and use their title so they get more noticed. In one part of the debate Romney said, "it's embarassing that the President of the USA..." As you can see the Republican candidate is attacking Obama and using his title as president as an advantage for him. He is blaming that some of Obama's actions are embarassing, and being the "President of the USA" his actions reflect in the rest, therefore not only embarassing him but also the country. Ethos was also used as a point of reference, "Latin American economy is almost as big as China's." When Romney said this he, was referring to something in specific. In this case he was reffering to a group of countries that according to him investing in them could be a great economic opportunity, therefore judging Latin America's economic character.

As the debate progressed, I felt used more forensic and deliberative forms of rhetoric, rather than demonstrative. Why is this I asked myself. As I wondered around it became obvious to as why choices and blame would be present in a presidential debate. Deliberative (future/choices) is present because each candidate is offering the people what they are going to do in the future if they are elected. Also all the debate revolved around an event that is going to happen in November 6, in which each citizen is going to choose who is going to be their president. As for forensic (past/blame) it was also used by both candidates. Romney used it by pointing out the mistakes made in his presidency. Instead Obama used it differently, he used it to point out how bipolar Romney's argument gotthrough each debate. So he showed how in the past debates he was saying the opposit things that he was saying in this debate.

After experiencing in this boxing ring of argument, I think I will run as a presidential candidate the next elections. Oh, and win them.

As a side note to this blog entry I have to add my favorite part of the debate,"Yes, we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. We als have less horses and bayonets." Yes sir, great comeback. Obama schooling Mitt Romney with a little bit of logos kryptonite.

Getting to Understand Rhetoric

Argument by character = ethos

Argument by logic = logos

Argument by emotions = pathos

These are the “Big Three” according to Aristotle (39). These types of arguments are the three basic tools of rhetoric. One may not notice, but we use these every single day of our lives, we my mean it but it also comes out naturally. Lets start by ethos. Ask yourself how many times your father/mother has gave you an order and you have to follow it just because they are your parents. Here is an example to what I consider ethos:

Daughter: Dad can I go to the party

Dad: No

Daughter: But why?

Dad: Because I am your dad and I’m telling you that you can’t go

In the example above, the girl’s dad is telling her what she can and cannot do because he is a “trustworthy persuader” (40). According to Aristotle ethos is the “most important appeal of all”(45). I have to agree with him because when someone that has a certain authority over you or has an “ability to look trustworthy,” one tends to believe what him/her are saying (40). If through all these explaining you did not get what ethos meant, then here is an other example. This a video from Pepsi Generation featuring Michael Jackson. This commercial is trying to imply to the audience that if you drink Pepsi you are going to the dance like The King of Pop. The video is using Michael Jackson’s persona to get people to drink their product, therefore applying ethos.

Then we have logos. The way logos work is by arguing with logic, it’s the one that gives reasons why. According to Aristotle when it comes to every point you make in an argument while using ethos it has a “flip side” (42). This is an example that Jay Heinrichs, the author of Thank You for Arguing, gave for logos:

Dad: “Look, Calvin. You’ve got to relax a little. Your balance will be better if you’re loose” (42).

Calvin: “I can’t help it! Imminent death makes me tense! I admit it! “(42).

Did you spot it? Because I did. In this example the dad is telling him to relax, but then is telling him why he should do it. Also Calvin uses it as well by telling his why he can’t relax. Here is my personal advice for identifying logos. If the persuader is answering the question why while presenting his argument, then he/her is using logos.

Last but not least is pathos. This is the rhetorical device that appeals to the emotions. Have you ever wondered were the word “sympathy” comes from. I never did, until I read this book. It’s root is pathos. Thank you Jay Heinrichs now it all makes sense. Sympathy = emotions = pathos. When using pathos the persuaders must show its concern towards the audience’s problem. One should let the audience “see your emotional change as you make you point” (43).

Pathos just like other rhetorical devices can also be used in novels. An example could be in The Burn Journals by Brent Runyon. Actually pathos is the one that is used the most out of the three in this book.  "'I'm trying, but it's hard,' andy my voice sounds really whiny and babyish" (68). This quote could be a great example of pathos. The author is not personally using it in argument, but he is using it so the audience takes sympathy towards the character.

So this it, my understanding of rhetoric.

Vocabulary:

hypophora: "it is a figure of speech.. which asks a rhetorical question and then immediately answers it" (39).

The Beauty of Arguing

Never thought that a book called Thank You for Arguing could be so interesting. At least to a teenager’s point of view. For those who do not know what this book is about, here is a little summary, “What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can teach us about The Art of Persuasion.” After reading Chapter 2 of this book, I know how useful arguing can be. Not only for school purposes, but to get you out of trouble in real life situations. To all my AP Lang friends out there, an argument could be the perfect moment for you to use that rhetoric you have got in you.

One of the most appealing things about this book was the comedy. Oh the beauty of comedy. Lets just start by the subtitles: “How to Seduce a Cop,” and “How to Manipulate a Lover.” I know all of you are trying to answer these questions in your head, but only Jay Heinrichs, the author of the book, has the right answers. Just say to the cup “Whoa, luck me up!” (20), and to your lover, “Voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir” (21). Keeping it simple. In my opinion, he is an introverted guy. with a taste of music that includes Christina Aguilera.

According to the author, there are three steps for persuading:

1.     Changing you audience’s mood

2.     Changing their mind

3.     Get the audience to do something or to stop doing it

Changing the mood according to Heinrichs is “the easiest goal” (23). For example take someone that is sad, let them know they should be happy and explain why it beneficiates him/her. Now that is a simple example, let us take one known by a great amount of people. Elections. To be more specific, Venezuelan elections. Analyzing the first candidate. Chavez, winner of the elections, gave his same b%$^s&^& he has given for the last fourteen years of power and wins with a 54% of the votes. Second Candidate: Henrique Capriles Radonski. He was the governor of Miranda and went for the chance of changing Venezuela and being elected as president of the Republic. He lost, but he did get a 44% of the votes, it might not sound as much well there was a big difference between him and Chavez, but it is the closest anyone has ever been in this combat against the Venezuelan president. I, as a Venezuelan, can say Capriles changed Venezuelans mood, in fact, he changed 6 million peoples mood. He came on saying “Hay Un Camino,” and people that thought there was no chance of beating Chavez saw it as an opportunity to change the destiny of the country, and even change some people's mood over if they wanted to vote or not. This could be an example of “changing its mood” (22). This step of persuasion is very common amongst politics and politicians in an argument over who will receive the power.

The example I just mentioned could also be considered as the second and third step. Because when talking about politics argument is probably one of the main things that politicians depend on. As for Chavez and Capriles, or Obama and Romney they all need to use these three steps to convince their audience. Changing mood, mind, and desire to act are musts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DbrPwtZFkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owa8L2TIUj8&feature=related
^ These videos are some song of Capriles campaign.

Confessions

As we keep reading different memoirs, I start noticing different patterns. The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls is written in an informal register, just as Half a Life and The Burn Journals. Why? I asked myself. Because I answered.

I guess most authors that decide to write a memoir, are writing for confession. To relieve them from whatever pain that this memory causes them, this is the situation in The Glass Castle as well that in Half a Life. When confessing the author does it for him/herself, so why would he/she do such in formal or ceremonial.

I guess I have this picture in my head that formal register applies to things as schools essays, research paper, or even an analytic film essay. However, with informal register I think more of novels, and now of memoirs. "Dad was a dramatic story teller. He always started out slow, with lots of pauses" (24). This can be one of the many examples to share why I believe it is in informal register. If you just read the quote above and think this book is in ceremonial register, well then we have a serious problem.

Ok, enough talking about the register and lets go down to business. As the book keeps unraveling, the more I understand why Jeanette, the main character, is embarrassed of her family as she grows up. Since my first blog I have red about 20-25 pages more, and if you read my previous blog you know how crazy her family can be, and if you did did read it and thought they were crazy, well then now you are in for a crazy drive.

“All this running around and moving was temporary, Dad explained. He had a plan. He was going to found gold” (22). Lets start by why would you go find gold. We are not in Pirates of the Caribbean and you are not Johnny Deep. Since Jeanette’s accident, her family gets what I think are crazy ideas. To start with, they are constantly moving, they are what one can call nomads. “Dad was always inventing things…one…was a complicated contraption he called The Prospector” (23). According to her dad, this was going to help them find gold. Not to get all judge in the old man, but he is not Bob the Builder either. I believe all these crazy thoughts are probably due to his “drinking situation” (23).