Deductive Argument On Rhetoric

As an aside, I would like to note that, though I believe that a further objection could be made to Socrates conclusions in “The Philosopher's Defense”, due to space considerations, I didn't write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.

As for myself, I had to weigh the concept of media influence effecting my purchasing habits, as I spend the majority of my free time outdoors or engaged with a book. What I concluded, was repetitively humorous ads such as “Old Spice”, “Irish Spring” and “Dollar Shave Club” commercials, not only share unique similarities in content, they also primarily address the market for low cost, daily use items. Considering these realities and my own recollection of advertisements which motivated me to purchase a product, I would have to postulate the Dollar Shave Club commercials won the contest hands down. In fact, I have never procured any Old Spice or Irish Spring product or felt any desire too, I simply enjoyed the satire imbedded in the advertising, however, when it came to the Dollar Shave Club, I have been a member for the past 3

Aristotle takes the key to morality to be the concept of “virtue,” which he argues to be activity in accordance with rational principles. He bases this argument on a concept of what is “natural” for man, but his discussion is clearly limited to a small class of Greek male citizens, whom he views as the

Depicting the justification between the Athenian jury against the father of philosophy, the Apology exhibits Plato's recollection and interpretation of the notorious trial of Socrates. Accused of refusing to worship the gods recognized by the Athenian state, corrupting the youth, and informally addressing himself throughout the trial, Socrates presents himself as a villain or an enemy to the Athenian society and jury. Even though Socrates could have solicited pity towards the jury by strengthening his defense with emotional appeal, Socrates’ refusal to appease the jury in the Apology justly transcends the moral values of the Athenian jury and the modern human. Socrates’ emphasis on preserving the impartiality of the trial provides support for Socrates’ refusal to appease the jury. Given the opportunity to show pathos and ethos appeal --the importance of his family and friends-- Socrates restrains himself from instigating any bias into the trial, in order to keep the trial unprejudiced.

Aristotle’s ‘function argument’ produced in the Nicomachean Ethics, is subject to harsh criticize that seemingly attacks Aristotle as a philosopher whom does not think his works thoroughly enough. The lack of blunt argument-statehood is substantial enough to and unfortunately interferes in proceeding to understanding what Aristotle has set out to demonstrate in the Nicomachean Ethics. Book 1 is merely an introduction to Eudaimonia and the Human Function. It is but a sketch, or rather an outline to what the book informs throughout. Where many believe to be the start of the Function Argument (NE1.7, 1097b30-34), Aristotle produces imagery of human-related objectives to their appropriate functions;craftsman to man and body parts to whole. This is meant to provoke the reader to critically think about their own function--as a human and Eudaimonia (note that we learn about Eudaimonia before the function argument is presented). I will defend the function argument and it’s plausibility in this essay by explaining the method utilized to build up this strong structured argument. This essay will converse with excerpts directly from Aristotle’s work, as well as

“Rhetoric, which is the use of language to inform or persuade, is very important in shaping public opinion. We are very easily fooled by language and how it is used by others.” Ray Comfort couldn’t have said it better. Rhetoric is a very powerful tool used in the English language. It has the power to conform people’s minds to fit the ideal society or influence their opinions about a certain subject. It is everywhere! It can be found in books, movies, commercials, debates, and speeches just to name a few. In Aristotle’s book, Rhetoric, he mentions all of the analytical strategies that are used when this literary art is practiced. These strategies will be applied to three different works of literature.

Tensions between moral philosopher and the faithful citizen of the polis are highlighted in Plato’s Apology and Crito. In the Apology, Socrates is faced with a death sentence at the hands of the state, but ironically is unapologetic in his discourse while defending himself. The Crito, however, displays Socrates in a dialogue where he chooses to engage and characterize the laws as a means of arguing for his faithfulness to the decision of the polis. Indeed, he uses the laws as a rhetorical device, affirming his attachment to the city and his duty to receive his punishment through the words of a largely unchallenged force which he gives life to. One could argue that these two dialogues are purely adversative, and that within them there is no

In this essay I will attempt to show that the philosopher, Renè Descartes’ Cogito Argument successfully proves the Evil Demon Argument to be unsound. By an analysis of the structure of the arguments and what they prove, I will show the evil demon argument to be unsound. An argument is unsound when the premises as false and the argument is invalid. This analysis of both structure and content will eventuate in objections on the aforementioned categories. To take any of Descartes’ arguments in consideration I have to understand why he started his meditations in order to prove Gods’ existence and to gain clear and distinct knowledge. At the same time of his first meditation he was engaged in a raging war within Europe and lost some his close family members (Smith, K., 2014), he too was at risk of death – all because of certain religious beliefs. It is easy to understand that he wrote all of his meditations in order for himself to be sure of dying for what he believed in.

"How you have felt, O men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was – such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth.” – Plato “The Apology”

This argument is very persuasive as… Thus, Descartes prove that there is a possibility of doubt about everything and all knowledge. This threatens our ability to say that we have knowledge of the external world. The role of the malignant demon is call into question the truth of clear and distinct ideas (Stuart 1986: 26). This also calls our mathematical knowledge and a priori truths into

Dr. Lamp is a scholar of rhetorical theory, practice, and education and joined the English department in fall semester 2010. Her published scholarship since arriving at ASU includes one book, The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome (2013, University of South Carolina Press), two refereed articles in major peer reviewed journals, and two book reviews. She also has one 3,000 word contribution in a refereed conference proceeding, which has been submitted for publication

“What is the charge? Well, a very serious charge, which shows a good deal of character in the young man, and for which he is certainly not to be despised. He says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who are their corruptors. And I fancy that he must be a wise man, and seeing that I am anything but a wise man, he has found me out, and is going to accuse me of corrupting his young friends. And of this our mother the state is to be the judge. Of all our political men he is the only one who seems to me to begin in the right way, with the cultivation of virtue in youth; he is a good husbandman, and takes care of the shoots first

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

Glaucon's argument begins with a question of whether the just or unjust man is happier, and continues on a tangent from there. He states that morality is based on convenience, and that it is natural to pursue one's own interests. He says that justice can pretty much be summed up as splitting the difference of two evils. The first, being forced to restrain one's self from certain interests, and the other being becoming the victim of injustice from another person. This, to me, is the most convincing part

This essay will be examining the ethics of Plato (428-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C). I will firstly attempt to summarise the five fundamental concepts of Plato and Aristotle before providing my own opinion and view on their ethics. I will concentrate on their theories on the good life as a life of justice, censorship, knowledge and the good life.