Ultimate Terms In Richard Weaver's The Ethics Of Rhetoric

For this discussion assignment, I will be briefly summarizing and analyzing Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca from The New Rhetoric, as well as the Realm of Rhetoric and The New Rhetoric; A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Through the readings, Perelman developed a kind of “new rhetoric” which was essentially a dense theory of argumentation, audience analysis, and values. He rejected the notion that deduction in persuasion is the key holder that can lead to truth, and advocated for a logic that takes into account categories and people’s understanding of phrases. Philosophy, Perelman argues, is a form of rhetoric (he attempts to connect philosophy and rhetoric again), a system of argument that tries to win the adherence of the “universal

Persuasion is a very strong technique that is used by many throughout history to form some of the greatest works of literature. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three forms of persuasion. In 2008 a man by the name of Barack Obama created his Victory Speech after a very hard fought campaign. He utilizes the three modes of persuasion to create his very persuasive speech. Persuasion is one of the most crucial strengths to any speaker, especially when applying ethos, pathos, and logos just as Barack Obama did in his 2008 Victory Speech.

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

Aristotle has an idea that there are three rhetorical appeals people can use to persuade someone else – ethos, pathos and logos. Each of them is very useful and the persuasion will be most effective when three of them are all used. Amy Tan used all in “Mother Tongue.”

The Idols of the Marketplace are illusions formed when people communicate with one another. These illusions are caused by the misuse of words, which results in misinterpretation. There are two classes in which the illusions may fall. The first class consists of words that are invented with no meanings and do not exist. The second class is made up of words that have double meanings. Let us take the word liberal; there are countless ways an individual may interpret this word. One person may associate it with becoming a progressive individual, while someone else may connect it with being honorable through education. No matter the word, there are always multiple ways to view and apply the meaning of a word to a situation.

There are many ways to convey a message to readers. Often times authors, speech writers, etc., refer to Aristotle’s three main concepts of rhetoric, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is considered to be the, “credibility,” of the author. Pathos is the idea of, “emotional appeal,” to the audience. Finally, Logos is the translated as the, “logic,” involved when making a point. All forms of rhetoric have at least one of these concepts, while good arguments incorporate a well balanced mixture of the three.

In many papers you will notice different types of persuasion that help the writer to give a reader a better of understanding of the paper. These types of persuasion are called rhetorical appeals. Each appeal has its own ability to give to the writer's paper, ethos is the credibility of the work the writer is using, pathos is appealing to the audience’s emotions, and lastly logos is the logical appeal. When writing a paper a person generally uses at least one rhetorical appeal to persuade their audience.

The goal of this style is to be able to convince the readers that your statements are better and more valid than anybody else’s. There are three categories for the means of persuasion which are; Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Thoreau uses these means pf persuasion very well throughout his essay to convince his audience.

Gore Vidal once said, “The Puritans left England for America not because they couldn’t be Puritans in their mother country, but because they were not allowed to force others to become Puritans; In the New World, of course, they could and did.” In1741, esteemed Puritan pastor, Jonathan Edwards, preached a sermon to his congregation, terrifying everyone who wasn’t truly Puritan into becoming one. Edwards’ purpose was to admonish non-Puritans and emphasizes the importance of the Puritans rededicating their life to their faith. Edwards uses diction, logos, and personification to terrorize the congregation into leading the “perfect Puritan life”.

Gerard A. Hauser covers a plethora of details on how to create a well-made persuasive argument in his book, an Introduction to Rhetorical Theory; however, he covered three specific essentials that are necessary for persuasion: the components logos, pathos and ethos; purposive discourse and rhetorical competence; identification. I will argue for each constituent, respectively, to prove that persuasion cannot thrive without the aforementioned essentials.

Rhetoric is a course in which students are taught the values of persuasion. And yet, behind this course is the utmost power to corrupt the world, changing it into a world of our own policies. This power, even though seldom discussed, has lead to many intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is how people are able to shape the world they live in simply by choosing the right words. Therefore those who would want the world to be a better place must protect this power. If in the wrong hands this power could cause serious damage. Several authors have striven to protect rhetoric and its power. Few agree on the matter of defining rhetoric, but they know that they must protect rhetoric from dark souls. A single definition of rhetoric must maintain a simplistic nature while incorporating every aspect of rhetoric. However, I argue that rhetoric is a means of persuading audiences of a situation and a particular reality through language and personal appeal. In order to prove this definition I will discuss how rhetoric creates a situation, the shaping of a different reality, the audience, the use of language, and the personal appeal. Finally, I will demonstrate the absolute need for rhetoric.

If it has been identified that the central route of persuasion on an audience is necessary due to high relevance to the persuasive message, this gives the persuader a framework to begin crafting a strong argument. Since relevance is what captures the audience’s attention, the persuader must exploit this. For example, if the persuader is attempting to sell a car to an individual the the use of the central route, and the potential buyer has been categorized as one that clearly understands the relevance of the purchase, the persuader should do his or her best to make their product seem the most relevant to the customer. The seller may do this by asking the customer to visualize how happy they will be in their new car. This can also be done by highlighting the features of the car that are most applicable to the customer’s concerns (safety, high gas mileage, etc). These methods will invite the receiver to become more involved with the target of persuasion. All of these ways utilize the customer’s judgment of high relevance to the situation to construct a strong argument.

While Bitzer’s insights into how one may think about the way in which rhetorical discourse acts upon and therefore alters the reality of a situation, it is difficult to see his point in stating that the “mere craft of persuasion” lacks philosophical warrant as a practical discipline. The clearest reason it seems, is implied from the examples that Bitzer uses, none of which are theological or religious in nature, but rather the examples he provides are usually political. Although one is left to speculate as to what categories Bitzer would include in sophistical rhetoric (other than a play or novel), might theological and religious discourse be subsumed under

The long term misunderstanding and simplification of RIGHT vs. LEFT terminology in political discourse is responsible for the misconception that “The RIGHT” with its emphasis on traditional, nationalistic, conservative or religious values is inevitably a step in the direction of the FAR RIGHT "ending in Fascism." Yet history has demonstrated that both political extremes share a basic common appeal to the “masses” and depend on a collectivist ideology that glorifies abstractions such as "The Nation," "The People," "The Throne" or "The Working Class."

Used in different ways, words can be destructive or rebuilding, influential or dull, and emotional or dry. The power and persuasion of words in our governments, slogans, political parties, and advertisements influences us to act in certain ways. In “I’jaam”, we see through Furat’s eyes how the government uses words to manipulate its people through propaganda and the Leader’s speeches. While Furat and I approach writing in different lights, we both acknowledge the importance of words when used in advantageous ways.