#if heart is pathos (appeal to emotion) and mind is logos (appeal to logic)

[wardinespurrit]

redid my hms designs. i go on a ramble in the tags beware

[moya02]

*Aristotle and Isocrates*

In this essay, I will examine the critical questions: What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

I examined a speech given by Captain America in Avengers Endgame to investigate the critical questions listed above. Captain America uses his background as a well respected leader to appeal to ethos, he also uses pathos to connect with the team as they share the same feelings of loss and sadness for their loved ones. Lastly, Captain America uses a logos appeal by using enthymeme to call the Avengers to fight towards their goal of getting the time stones before Thanos. 

Avengers Endgame is an action movie focusing on how a team of superheroes work together to overcome their enemies/villains. The speech I am writing about happens 5 years after Thanos (villain) acquires all the infinity stones and uses them to wipe out half of the population on Earth. Thanos committed this act to create a planet in his own vision because he believed that humans were ungrateful. Due to Thanos’s actions, the Avengers and many others on Earth had lost their loved ones. This urged the Avengers to devise a plan to reverse what Thanos did by going back in time to collect the infinity stones before Thanos did. Right before the Avengers mission, Captain America gives a speech that uses ethos, pathos, and logos through the use of enthymemes to prepare and motivate them for a fight that is filled with uncertainty.

Rhetoric can move an audience to act towards a common goal, and its power to convey such strong messages is an art within itself. According to Aristotle, “ The three artistic proofs-proofs taught by the art of rhetoric—are (1) logos or arguments and logical reasoning, (2) pathos or the names and causes of various emotions, and (3) ethos or human character and goodness” (Aristotle, 78)-- “Aristotle uses logos to refer to proofs available in words, arguments, or logic of a speech. Pathos for Aristotle was "putting the audience in the right frame of mind"  to make a good decision. In order to establish ethos, the speaker must "exhibit phronesis (intelligence, good sense), arete (virtue), and eunoia (goodwill).” “Aristotle held that of the three artistic proofs—logos, pathos, and ethos—this last one, ethos, was potentially the most persuasive. When people are convinced that a speaker is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and has their best interests at heart, they will be very likely to accept as true what that speaker has to say” (Herrick, 81).

Due to Captain America's past as a soldier and his experience as a leader of the Avengers, he is considered a respected leader automatically. This does not stop him from building his ethos by addressing the losses of the team and goal as he announces, “ We have a plan, Six stones, three teams, one shot” (0:01). Captain America announces the plan as well as assigned the teams of the Avengers shows his authority as a leader. Additionally, Captain America takes an assertive stance by putting himself at the forefront of the group, thus showing his dedication to leading them through a successful mission. His ability to inspire the Avengers to go forward with a mission filled with uncertainty cannot go unnoticed as he plays a crucial role in moving toward victory. 

Captain America uses pathos to connect with the team on their losses. He makes them feel less alone in the sorrow of emotions they are experiencing due to Thanos as he brings forth the themes of loss and hope. Captain America states, “Five years ago, we lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves”(0:18). By bringing up the fight against Thanos that the Avengers lost years ago, it invites them to think back to their yields. It is also an emotional appeal to the audience because several team members lost someone very close to them; they even lost Avengers such as Spiderman and Doctor Strange. Captain America repeatedly uses the word “we” to connect and validate the loss of his teammates, and their losses act as a form of motivation. Rather than dwelling on the loss, he encourages the Avengers to move forward and work together as a team. 

Captain America builds his logos by creating an enthymeme that reminds the Avengers of the sacrifice that must be made to save millions. He does this by highlighting, “Five years ago we lost. All of us–Today we have a chance to take it all back–Get the stones. Get them back” (0:42). The main point of this speech is to remind the Avengers that they lost but have a chance to reverse that. It appeals to the Avengers as it reminds them of the tremendous sacrifice that is necessary to win. By getting the stones back, the Avengers can have the power that Thanos once acquired and use it to collect the infinity stones before they get into Thanos's hands. Furthermore, through his use of logos, Captain America convinces the Avengers with a logical argument that urges them to go through with the mission and reminds them that they are capable of winning. In the final moments of his speech, Captain America states,  “Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives and we’re gonna win. Whatever it takes” (0:56). 

This speech is overall ethical as the Avengers are fighting for the greater good as they fight for the moral principles that help to guide the Avengers with each mission they take on. If not for their reversal of Thanos’s doing, many people would still be dead. This speech calls together the team to work towards their common goal. On the other hand, some might find the speech unethical because people have to die to bring back millions. While this is a valid concern, it is impossible to defeat Thanos without death happening. The speech is ethical as it brings forth the ideas of self-sacrifice, especially when Captain America firmly states, “Whatever it takes.” This statement emphasizes the importance of moral decisions by destroying individual desires to fight for more significant causes. The Avengers are also committed and willing to take the burden of this mission onto themselves to benefit the collective. Furthermore, the speech is productive as it motivates the Avengers in unison, and it creates a commonality of shared values that each Avenger possesses.

In conclusion, Captain America delivers an ethical message through rhetorical devices. Captain America persuades the Avengers to self-sacrifice to fight for humanity because, without their fight, the millions that have perished due to Thanos’s doing will forever be gone. He does this by using an ethos appeal due to his status as a veteran and a well-respected leader to the Avengers, a pathos appeal to bring forth the emotions of loss and hope, and a logos appeal through the use of enthymemes.

Work Cited: 

“Avengers: Endgame .” Youtube, Uploaded by Nagesh Palukuru, 16 Aug. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yXqgBo3DeQ. 

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston, 2013, pp. 78–81.

[iangorken5]

*Ethos, Pathos, and Logos*

What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical? 

Tony Arcuri uses ethos, pathos, and logos to argue that through God and belief in themselves they can beat a better team than them, which is overall ethical because it displays a never give up mentality which helps kids battle through adversity. Tony Arcuri is a high school football coach that is tasked with getting his team ready to face a hard opponent. The other team they are facing has been portrayed in the media as an impossible team to beat with multiple division 1 players. His team does not have any division 1 players and they are told by everyone outside of their team that they have no chance of winning. So, in his pregame speech, Coach Arcuri uses God and his team's belief to motivate them to go out there and battle against all the odds. 

Throughout my writing there will be many references to the idea and usage of ethos, pathos, and logos. Using James A. Herricks writing and his evaluation of Aristotle, I will be able to draw upon my own examples and display how they can be used for many different reasons. In Herrick’s writing he describes ethos in a few different ways, “persuasive potential of the speaker’s character or personal credibility… this proof should develop from what the speaker says in the course of a speech.” (Herrick 80) In other words the speaker must demonstrate how they are a good person with good intentions through their own words and examples. Ethos is about the speaker, pathos focuses on the audience and changing their frame of mind. Herrick writes that pathos “is used to refer to emotional appeals that give persuasive messages their power to move an audience.” (Herrick 79) In order for pathos to be effective there needs to be emotional influence among the audience towards making a good decision. Having the emotional impact creates a feeling of loyalty. Lastly the logos appeal. In Herricks writing he describes logos as the “study of the arguments employed in practical decision making.” (Herrick 79) In other words, it is the words used to make practical choices within the logical standard. Using logos is using logic to make decisions. 

Coach Arcuri uses an ethos appeal to appear spiritual and open minded through the use of God in his pre game speech to the team. To start off his speech, Coach Arcuri says, “most of you guys know I try to be a spiritual guy and I am not telling you to believe or telling you how to believe, but everyday I open up the [Bible].” Right from the start he is building his credit and personality as a speaker by referencing God and his openness to believing in whatever you believe in. The main purpose of him starting his speech like this is to connect with his team not on a physical level but a spiritual level. His plan was to build his speaking profile and allow his team to believe in him like they believe in their respective religion. This is a call on ethos which is the building up of the speaker's words based on good intentions. Looking through the framework of Herrick’s definition of ethos this is a good example. The speaker uses his own words to show he is a good person and is looking out for the audience with good intentions. By opening up and showing he can be vulnerable and share very heartfelt information plays into his openness and good natured self. He wants his team to connect with him and feel how much he cares about God and how much he believes in what he is speaking. This is an effective way to persuade an audience, according to Herrick, “when people are convinced that a speaker is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and has their best intentions at heart, they will be very likely to accept as true what the speaker has to say.” (Herrick 81) Looking at coach Arcuri’s speech he does exactly this. He allows his audience or team to believe in his trustworthiness and in his intentions which allows them to accept what he is saying and start to believe in themselves against a greater opponent. 

Coach Arcuri uses a pathos appeal to encourage his team to feel empowered so they fight for a victory. In his speech Coach Arcuri uses David being the least likely choice to become king and how he was the youngest, weakest but had the biggest heart. Then he relates it to his team, “they are bigger, they got guys going Division 1, we see that, be the intangible tonight.” He explains how the heart of a person is an intangible and can counter almost anything in life. When looking at his use of pathos, he uses it to fire his team up by using a story and then relating it back. He talked about how big, strong, and fast the other team is and all the doubters rooting against them that night. The way he uses it sends the message to his team that they are being disrespected in a way and given no chance to win. He gives them a sense of empowerment and a mission for them to pursue. The way Aristotle in Herricks writing defined Pathos was, “putting the audience in the right frame of mind.” (Herrick 79) According to this definition Coach Arcuri used Pathos perfectly. He used to to put his team in the right frame of mind to go out there against a superior team and try to take them down. Against all the odds he gave his team empowerment through the use of pathos in his speech. 

Coach Arcuri uses a logos appeal to argue that the odds were against David, but even the most drastic odds against someone can be overcome. As mentioned before Coach Arcuri used the story of David in his pregame speech. He said, “when Samuel came to lose power everyone looked at his sons, he had 8. David was the least likely but the one that was chosen.” The reason he uses this example is because it directly correlates to the situation the team is in. He is outlining it by using an example. They are against very tough odds and the only way to win is by believing in yourself and your teammates. According to Herrick Logs can be defined as “the study of inference making or reasoning.” (Herrick 79) The way Coach Arcuri lays on his metaphor and example is for reasoning. His reasoning leads his team to see the possibility of victory and to believe they can achieve that. There is not much more he can do as a Coach then to fire them up and truly have them believing they can win. Using logical reasoning and examples can simplify things and bring them down to base level. Not only does that help with overall understanding, but it makes it easier to relate to other things and make stronger connections. This is what Coach Arcuri did by connecting their football game to the Bible. He drew upon their faith and used to to directly exemplify their game that night. 

In Coach Arcuri’s speech there is the use of ethos, pathos and logos to show his team there is a chance to beat their superior opponent even against all odds. This is ethical because it is displaying a positive attitude and message to his players to never give up and embrace adversity. This is a message that can be used for the rest of their lives after football. It is extremely important in life to be able to keep a positive mindset and see the goal and vision even through tough times. Coach Arcuri also uses God and preaches good faith. Also, a positive and ethical outlook especially when he acknowledges other religions and does not single anyone out. He preaches full acceptance for whatever you believe in to make sure there is no one being left out when talking about their respective religion. Overall, this speech is ethical in the message it conveys and how it is transmitted.

Looking at the different aspects to one pregame speech there is a ton to dissect. Coach Arcuri used ethos, pathos and logos to empower his team through the use of God and belief in themselves to battle against a greater opponent in hopes of a victory. He did this all while keeping it ethical and producing a positive overall message that the kids and viewers can use for the rest of their lives. After diving into the use of these artistic proofs, it is clear how big of an impact they can carry and the influence in a speech they can have. This makes ethics super important in order to keep the students best interest in mind.

[vivmaek]

Placements that can definitely win a debate?

PLACEMENTS THAT CAN WIN A DEBATE

This is a hard question to answer because I think it depends greatly on the type of debate at hand. So, these are the types of debates certain placements will most definitely win. This is a short list that could be expanded upon. I wrote on placements that first came to mind. Ethos - appealing to the speaker's credibility, authority and status. 

Sun Conjunct Saturn - When it comes to laying down the law, people with this placement do it well. They command respect and authority due to the high level of responsibility they take on. They follow through on their actions and consistently prove themselves time and time again through their hard work. In debates, they are well regarded because their words match up with their actions.

Jupiter Sextile Saturn - These types are disciplined and efficient. They are known for their wisdom and give out the best life advice. Most importantly, they trust themselves and will not waver when facing conflict. People with this placement are also known for their leadership qualities and are very inspiring. 

Jupiter Trine Pluto - Those with this placement garner a lot of authority and influence over the course of their life. They are incredibly persuasive and charming. Their large presence is intimidating and people can’t help but nod their head along to whatever they are saying. I also like to think of this as the “yes-man” placement, they will most definitely have some strong supporters in their corner backing them up. 

Sun in the 10th House - You just can't help but want to believe in these types of people. They have a way about them that is regal and authoritative. Usually, a lot of success and glory is attached to the names of those with this placement. They are well regarded by authority and through that given respect. 

Jupiter in the 1st House - For one, these people are naturally lucky and there is a good reason to believe that they may win their debates simply through chance. However, this doesn't take away the respect they garner through their developed sense of character. Their happy go lucky nature is to be expected, so when a more serious side to their nature comes out, other people can’t help but notice and pay attention. 

Pathos - appealing to the audience's emotions and beliefs, the use of feeling. 

Moon Trine Mars - These are some of the most passionate people out there and they could definitely overtake a debate. They have a well developed moral code and are strong defenders and protectors. They care deeply and are authentic with their emotional expression. Other people greatly appreciate their vulnerable honesty. 

Moon Trine Midheaven - When it comes to appealing to the masses, these types do it well. Their sense of empathy knows no bounds and they are fantastic at reading a room. They can see themselves in every person they meet. Their understanding of human nature and skilled intuition is going to give them an edge.  

Mars Conjunct Pluto - These types bring an intensity to a debate that is unmatched. They are incredibly fierce and assertive with their opinions. Their audience is going to feel on edge and it is going to be difficult for them to want to speak up. They know how to use other people's vulnerabilities and have the use of skilled manipulation tactics at hand. 

Moon in the 3rd House - People with this placement are masters of communicating emotions. They can speak on matters of the heart clearly and can use their words for vulnerable appeal. 

Mars in the 9th House - Those with this placement have opinions that elicit a strong emotional response from other people. They can use their knowledge as a weapon and do so through their passion and veracity. Thoughts and ideas that differ from their own don’t make these types uncomfortable and they can approach debates with an open mind. 

Logos - appealing to the audience's sense of reason and logic, the use of facts and common sense. 

Mercury Trine Pluto - People with this aspect notice every single detail and have an investigative mind. They are oftentimes experts within their field of interest and have a lot of tactful knowledge to display. Their deep insights are impactful and their penetrative mind can see through any sort of lie or falsified statement. They can be manipulative with their words and entrap people with their semantics. 

Mercury Trine Uranus - Their scientific mind and practicality make them out for strong debaters. Most importantly, they know how to deal with the unexpected and can take on a curve ball without sweating it. They are the best problem solvers and also know where exactly an argument is leading. Nothing takes them by surprise and they have the facts to back themselves up.

Mercury Trine Mars - If I had to choose specifically, I think people with this placement truly make for the best debtors. They can spot weakness in an instant and use it against their opponent skillfully. They are quick with their words and not without reason. They are the experts at “winging it” and can come up with arguments on the fly. Their communication skills pack a punch and they use logic like a weapon. 

Mercury in the 1st House - Being intelligent and quick witted by nature, these individuals are going to do well in a debate. They are well known for their fantastic communication skills, so it is no surprise that they would be on this list. 

Mercury in the 9th House - Their knowledge is unlimited and they can probably debate anything. They know a little bit of everything and there isn't a topic they won’t be able to fact check.

Uranus in the 9th House - They are going to pull ideas from seemingly nowhere, leaving their audience shocked. Other people don’t know where these individuals are going to take a debate but it always seems like they have the upper hand. They are intelligent and their thought process is well thought out and tested. 

[the-hs-etaverse]

Aspect Groupings, IMO

Hi, first off, huge shoutout to @communistvriska who makes brilliant classpecting posts (they’re walls of text but it’s good text). But she made this fantastic analysis of the relationships between aspects and how they’re related to their positions on the aspect wheel (link).

So, I know, like, the post above is considerably more canon, but it made me remember that I think of the aspects in groups, too. It’s definitely a different system, and it doesn’t make quite as much sense w.r.t. the aspect wheel, but it’s my take (albeit a tepid one). And honestly, screw canon.

Please, take these with a grain of salt, because I am most definitely not writing these all out feverishly at 2 am. (No Keep Reading tag we you die like men)

Space-Time-Void: The World Aspects

These are the three aspects that are intrinsically connected to the fabric of reality. Yes, I’m excluding Light in this definition because of its alternate meaning, which is the one that seems more often used metaphysically in Sburb. But yeah, you have Space and Time, which are opposites in a sense (Space is the tangible reality and Time is the intangible but still real liminality), but then Void, which is absence, is basically the opposite of them both.

These are the most meta aspects, in a certain sense, because physics is based upon them. But they’re also the most tangible ones. They’re the ones with the most concretely singular definitions. They’re the ones that affect the dimensions that we can pass through (if Time counts as a dimension).

Going off of more symbolic representations of them, Space is creation, Time is revision (it’s basically the big fix-it tool of the cosmos), and Void is... well, it’s not really destruction; that’s Rage’s purview. It’s more of uncertainty. You’d think that would fit best with the Next aspects because they’re all about what’s going to happen next, but ACTUALLY MEGAN it doesn't quite fit there. Those aspects know where they’re going or where they might go. Void doesn’t know. Heck, it doesn’t even know the past sometimes (re: Equius’s Pesterquest route). But Void still fits the whole building metaphor because it’s like when you’re working on a Minecraft castle and you have no idea what to do next. Wondering about that sort of thing, and just waiting and walking around the building you’ve built, is rather important to the creative process, imo.

Mind-Heart-Blood: The Self Aspects

These are the three aspects that are intrinsically connected to one’s sense of self: body (Blood), mind (Mind), and soul (Heart). (Insert Vriska (Vriska) joke here (and another one about missing close-parentheses in Python (if you can’t tell, this was mostly written while sleep-deprived)).) But Blood is significantly more abstract than that: it’s also about one’s relationships with others, but in a different sense than Heart is. Blood is about bonds, and Heart is about emotions. And Mind is about logic, which, you could say, is an opposite of both of them.

You could even go so far as to compare Mind, Blood, and Heart to the Modes of Persuasion - logos, ethos, and pathos (respectively). Again, they’re representative of different aspects of a person’s psyche. But, like, I have no idea how you might apply that.

Okay, I have an idea with how that’s kind of being applied. Terezi’s the big Mind (translation: galaxy brain) player, and she’s all about lawyering and rules and logic. There’s your logos. Dirk’s the most developed Heart player, and he’s all about convincing through appeals to emotion, and that’s for the most part how he manipulates the narrative in the Epilogues and the ^2. There’s your pathos. And Karkat, the Blood player, uh, most of his leader stuff is in a sort of Cincinnatus-type of way; he’s not being the trolls session leader or the presidential candidate cuz he wants to, he’s doing it because somebody’s gotta step up and do it and he wants to do the right thing. There’s your ethos.

Breath-Light-Doom: The Next Aspects

These aspects being grouped together is why I made these groupings in the first place. Because, when taken deeper than face level, they all refer to one’s future. Breath is destiny (this is kind of a stretch, but “Winds of destiny, change!”), Light is chance, and Doom is fate. Yes, those are all synonyms, but they also refer to different aspects of one’s future. Destiny is about the biggest picture, where you fit in to the grand scheme of things; but it’s also about where the wind takes you here and now. It’s an extrapolation of your current path. Fate is about the fixed waypoints and endpoints, where the path will bottleneck, where you will go no matter what. And chance is about how much the path can divert along the way, and how much leeway the bottlenecks hold, and what you need to do to modify the biggest picture.

The more literal definitions of these aspects are Breath as wind; Light as, well, light (insert another Vriska (Vriska) joke here); and Doom as... uh, death.

I, uh, I really don’t have much else to say here. Uh, you guys take this one.

Hope-Rage-Life: The Now Aspects

This grouping, for me, is the most confusing (partly because they’re the aspects left over once the obvious ones are grouped together). Because Hope and Rage being tied together makes sense, obviously, but what does that all have to do with Life?

Well, I think they’re all mental attitudes, in a way, how we act now and how we choose to look at existence. Hope is optimism, Rage is pessimism, and Life is idealism. Take note: none of these are realism, not even Life. They’re all coloured lenses: When you look with Hope, you see the best version of the future. When you look with Rage, you see the worst version of the future. When you look with Life, you see your desired version of the future. But none of these are the real version of the future. Sure, they’re all beneficial in their own way, but sometimes you have to take those lenses off. I feel like Hope, Rage, and Life players have the hardest time taking off their own lenses.

Then there’s more literal definitions of the aspects: Hope is belief, Rage is destruction, and Life is growth. Very loosely speaking, these are the actions that you’d take in order to fulfill the respective mindsets. Like, I’m optimistic about Vrisrezi Real HS^2 Endgame (this optimism might be misplaced), so I’m believing super hard in that coming to pass. I’m pessimistic about Order of the Stick ending on any note other than the Snarl winning (but tbh this pessimism could also be misplaced), so I’m like “okay heck with it let it get wrecked big-time”. I’m idealistic about how I can eventually get not depressed (I pray that it’s not misplaced), so I’m working on growing in the not-depression area.

In like the grand scale, with reference to all of them

I’m not looking at these aspects in their relationship to a session. I’m more looking at them based on what they are, by definition. All these aspects are interconnected, they’re all related in different ways, especially in terms of definition, so you could absolutely make different groupings based on their definitions. This is just my take.

One thing I noticed about the Aspect Wheel is that it’s a cycle, the cycle of being. Space is about creation and birth, so you start there. You aren’t yet anything more than a substance, but then comes in your Mind, and you’re administered Hope, that you will yet be something more. And then you take your first Breath, and there begins your Life. You learn and are enLightened, and Time passes. You grow up. You learn to manage your Heart, and you have to fight against Rage, and then you form bonds of Blood. Your Blood spills out after long, and ultimately you have to face your Doom. You enter the Void. And there it ends, but there it also begins.

Wow, that got pretentious.

I have to wonder how religion would work in a setting like Sburb, if at all. The classpect system is pretty irreligious. But I’ll save that for a later post. Maybe.

[effectivesociety]

Grants for businesses

Make it memorable.

Use supporting details, graphs, and charts when necessary. And don’t underestimate the value of creating an emotional connection with your reader.

The person reading your proposal isn’t always the person who awards the grant. Oftentimes, the person reading your proposal will report back to the awarding organization’s Grants for businesses board of trustees. They will present a condensed version of your proposal, boiling it down to the main ideas and the information that’s most important to the foundation. What information do you want them to share? Focus on supporting those ideas.

Appreciate the power of persuasion.

How do you persuade a reader to your cause? Grantsplus.com writes about three different “modes of persuasion”: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.

Ethos — this relates to ethics. Your writing should convey that you are credible and trustworthy. What credentials or qualifications do you have to support your trustworthiness? 

Logos — this relates to logic. You should support any claims you make in your appeal with data and facts. Do you have any customer testimonials you can include? Give your reader a reason to believe what you say.

Pathos — this relates to the heart and appeals to emotion. Use your business story to further your appeal, making sure to illustrate your points with words that evoke imagery and quotes, if you have them.

Proofread and edit. Then do it again.

It’s 4 o’clock in the morning and you’ve stayed up all night and finished writing your appeal, which means it’s time to submit it, right? Absolutely not!

Don’t even think about submitting your grant application if you haven’t proofread and edited it. Read it out loud so you can hear any mistakes in grammar or spelling and fix them accordingly. After you’ve done that, take it a step further and ask someone else to review your grant application. Sometimes, an impartial set of eyes can find issues that you’re otherwise blind to. 

Small Business Grants available in 2020.

Now that you know what a small business grant is, how to qualify, and how to write an appeal for a grant, it’s time to explore the small business grants available to you. The following list is by no means exhaustive — there exist grants for almost every niche and industry, but these resources can help jumpstart your search for the perfect grant. Keep in mind that the government itself doesn’t provide money to your business, but it does partner with numerous agencies that can help you seek grant funding.

[customarycreate]

Okay, for English we are doing persuasive writing, focusing specifically on Logos, Pathos and Ethos and boy, do I have some thoughts!

Logos: Obviously Susan. Susan is practical and appeals to logic, (at least, when she first comes to Narnia). Facts and statistics run through her head before reaching a conclusion on how she should act. A hundred different scenarios; some real, some hypothetical, run through her mind before a descision is made. 

Pathos: Lucy. Lucy does everything from the heart, and her emotions contribute heavily in her actions. Her heart shines outward, and she becomes known throughout her reign for her empathy. (Also, it’s a headcanon of mine that she is a fantastic storyteller, and everyone knows storytellers are great at using pathos.)

Ethos: Edmund. Known as the Just, Edmund doesn’t let his emotion affect any of his descisions, but he also doesn’t rely on logic either. Sometimes (especially when he is passing judgement on someone) his descisions aren’t logical. They are what he believes to be right. He doesn’t let emotion cloud him either, often passing a good judgement on an enemy and a bad judgement on an ally (or what he thought was an ally). 

Peter is what combines all three of these. He acts with logos, pathos and ethos, and is the balance between his siblings. It is what made their reign such a prosperous and joyful rule. He ties them together, taking a combination of all three appeals to pass the final descision. 

[ioergerbomb20]

Tumblr 2

In this essay, I will examine the critical question: What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Jim Valvano’s ESPYS speech, which was given on March 4, 1993.  By using ethos, pathos, and logos, Jim Valvono effectively establishes that cancer research urgently needs more attention, and that something can be done if people work together to raise money.  Overall the rhetorical appeals used are ethical in raising awareness.  

James Thomas Anthony Valvano, also known as Jimmy V, was a basketball coach at several universities.  He is most well known for his time at North Carolina State University.  During his tenure, he won the 1983 Division 1 national championship.  He paired this success with two regular season ACC championships along with two ACC tournament championships.  After 1990, Coach V retired, and became a broadcaster for ESPN.  He worked for ESPN for two years before he was diagnosed with cancer in 1993 and given little time to live.  Within the next year he gave the ESPYS speech that would change cancer research forever.  

Herrick explains Aristotle’s arguments on how ethos, pathos, and logos are used in speeches.  The article explains how logos appeals are used in rhetoric to make reason or logic of something (Herrick, 2005).  Aristotle’s argument to how pathos would be used is to get an emotional response out of the audience (Herrick, 2005)  Authors will use pathos to get the audience to feel a certain emotion about them or their cause.  Lastly, ethos, according to a book of Aristotle, is used to give the author credibility.  The three artistic proofs help any speaker make a strong argument if used correctly.

Ethos is used at several different points throughout Jimmy V’s speech.  He first used ethos to establish his credibility at the moment.  He states “Now I’m fighting cancer, everybody knows that (V Foundation, 2021).”  Before this speech, almost everyone knew Coach V was dying of this dreadful disease, but when he reminds everyone that he is fighting cancer, he uses ethos to show he has credibility.  He also used ethos with his attitude towards cancer research.  He states that “but try if you can to support, whether it’s AIDS or the cancer foundation, so that someone else might survive, might prosper and might actually be cured of this dreaded disease (V Foundation, 2021).”  He is saying how he is optimistic of the fact that cancer may one day be cured if everyone does their part in funding research.  He knew that there was no chance he could survive, but wanted future fighters of this disease to have a chance.  

Jimmy V also uses pathos to call at the emotions of his audience.  He calls his audience to feel a sense of inspiration.  He does this by telling his audience that much more money is going into AIDS research.  He explains how AIDS research has made huge strides, due to the massive amounts of funding it has received (V Foundation, 2021).  He wants his audience to feel inspired about their abilities to change the world in a positive way.  He seems to be attempting to convince this audience that every dollar given could change cancer research forever.  While pointing out the positive outcomes of AIDS research, and tying it to the amount of money given, he is pulling at the hearts of his audience to give more money.

Pathos is also used throughout the speech to give a sense of hope.  Coach V gives the V Foundation motto of “Don’t give up . . . don’t ever give up (V Foundation, 2021).”  This quote is used to give the audience hope about the potential of curing cancer.  He stood before everyone with the intention of giving them hope about what is coming in the future.  He also states “Cancer can take away all my physical abilities. It cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart and it cannot touch my soul. And those three things are going to carry on forever (V Foundation, 2021).”  Obviously, people were going to sympathize with him, but this was likely not his goal.  As stated in his motto, he wanted people to never give up, no matter the circumstances.  This quote could be applied to both cancer research and cancer patients. 

Lastly, Jimmy V uses logos to not only give statistics, but give people the opportunity to change.  He uses statistics, such as 500 thousand people dying a year from cancer, and one in four people get cancer (V Foundation, 2021).  He uses these statistics to show the significance of this deadly disease.  He is also giving everyone the opportunity to change their ways when giving their statistics.  He does not say this, but it is likely he is hinting at people living healthier lifestyles as well.  There are carcinogens in so many things people enjoy, which shoots cancer numbers through the roof.  Jimmy V also gives everyone the opportunity to change the world by giving money to his cause.  

Overall, Coach V’s argument about the urgency of cancer research is ethical.  He never deems giving money to his foundation to be a requirement.  He is very passionate about his cause, and uses several deep examples to make his argument, but he does not force anyone to give money.  Instead he is arguing that he wants less people to be going through what he is.  He wants to save as many people as possible.  He seems to be a genuine man that wants to inspire everyone to change with his story.  Coach V wants everyone to have the chance to survive cancer, and believes it is impossible without more money for research.  Since giving this speech, Jimmy V has been praised for his contribution to cancer research.  

I analyzed Jimmy V’s ESPYS speech given in March of 1993.  By using ethos, pathos, and logos, Jimmy V establishes the urgency of cancer research in the world today.  He ethically explains how something can be done if people give money to the cause.  Cancer is a horrible disease, but Coach V gave several examples to inform and pull at the hearts of the audience.  He inspired everyone who had the opportunity to witness this speech, and continues to give people hope today.  

Herrick, J. A. (2005). Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). New York: Routledge. 

ESPY awards speech. V Foundation. (2021, December 22). Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.v.org/about/remembering-jim/espy-awards-speech/ 

[feral-flower-child]

I’m in ACC Comp and we’re learning about the various appeals in writing.

Two of which are Pathos and Logos aka emotion and logic. They appeal to the reader or the person, one to the heart and one to the mind

Who else is the heart and the mind and who’s name’s are suspiciously similar to these Greek words?

I see what you did Thomas

[ryancurtis15-blog]

*Aristotle: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos*

In this entry i am going to examine the critical question: How are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to convey a certain message? Is this message effective for the target audience? Is it ethical?

In order to investigate these questions, I examined a television broadcast of Trevor Noah giving feedback on President Trump’s 2019 state of the union address. Throughout the show Trevor Noah uses ethos, pathos, and logos to share his idea of how effective president Trump’s speech was and to provide critique. This usage of the three factors is ethical and provides a strong message for the audience to take away.

Trevor Noah is a very well known comedian and on his show he usually argues for a more democratic and liberal ideology. The show is a political based show and specializes in satire. The artifact in question is Trump’s 2019 state of the union address

Herrick uses Aristotle’s definition of Pathos as “putting the audience in the right frame of mind” (Herrick pg. 12) through the use of emotions. Herrick states that “ A good Orator serves the city-state by assisting good decision making.” (Herrick pg.12). Trevor Noah uses his rhetoric in a way that helps people make a decision on how effective and correct a speech by the president was. Noah does this through the use of humor, and by Herrick and Aristotle's definitions of logos, this is a very effective and productive form of rhetoric. Through humor Noah gathers support to his idea of what should be critiqued, and what he thinks should be viewed at as wrong entirely. The use of humor gets everyone laughing and happy, and when people are enjoying themselves they are more likely to agree with Noah and find faults in the President’s rhetoric.

In addition to Pathos, we also have the idea of Logos. Herrick uses Aristotle to define this term as well and states that “Aristotle uses logos to refer to proofs in words, arguments, or the logic of a speech.” (Herrick pg. 12) In this artifact Noah uses logos through the use of having factual arguments about what  Trump takes credit for in his speech. For example when Noah says that “Trump takes credit for the democrats electing more women.” he uses logic through the use of truth and facts to show that Trump is taking credit for having more women in congress, when actually, that has nothing to do with him at all.

The final take away from the Herrick reading is the idea of ethos. According to Herrick’s take on aristotle ethos is “the sociology of good character” and these traits are “when an audience sees a speaker as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and having their best interests at heart.” (Herrick pg. 14). The audience for Noah typically use him as a source for news as well as comedy, so the fact that Noah speaks about and critiques the state of the union address helps the audience to see him as knowledgeable. When Noah critiques Trump saying “if there is to be peace and legislation there cannot be war and investigation.” he shows his audience that he has their best interests at heart, because he explains that there shouldn’t be an end to investigations of crime just because the president said it needs to end.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to this narrative. An advantage is that through the application of ethos, pathos, and logos Trevor Noah is able to rally support to actually deconstruct the president’s rhetoric through finding flaws in claims that are false, and arguments that the president makes. A disadvantage that comes from this artifacts rhetoric though is that it seems that Noah is only talking about all of the poor examples from the speech, pointing out only flaws. This is a disadvantage because the audience isn’t getting exposed to any good rhetoric from the state of the union address only the poor rhetoric. This creates a view that there were only negative things in the speech that Noah’s audience will believe and argue for.

Stucki further explains the effectiveness and connection of ethos, pathos, and logos. Stucki explains these connections by saying “the core hypothesis of this illustrative study reads as follows: backing an argument (logos) by evidence increases its trustworthiness (ethos) but not its emotional appeal (pathos).”  and to connect pathos into the equation they offer up this idea: “the sympathy part of ethos is related to emotional appeal” meaning that by being factual a speaker uses logos and ethos together, and when sympathizing with the crowd they also use pathos, and all of these ideas work together in good rhetoric. When applying this to Noah, we see him getting emotions out of the crowd and in doing so he is increasing his trustworthiness. In addition to this we see Noah using factual arguments (logos) which in turn also adds to his ethos because the crowd will trust him even more. Noah gets a balance between all three of these ideals and that makes his arguments of how Trump’s rhetoric should be seen and criticized accepted within his audience.

In Summary Trevor Noah uses all three ethos, pathos, and logos in a way that connects well within his audience. Since Noah used all three forms well he is able to effectively get his audience to accept his views of how one should criticize the president’s rhetoric and he does so in an ethical way.

Works Cited

Baranauckas, Carla. “Trevor Noah: Real Theme Of Trump's Speech Was 'We're All Gonna Die'.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 6 Feb. 2019, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trevor-noah-trumps-speech_us_5c5aa9c2e4b09293b209ab52.

Stucki, Iris, and Fritz Sager. “Aristotelian Framing: Logos, Ethos, Pathos and the Use of Evidence in Policy Frames.” Policy Sciences, vol. 51, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 373–385. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9322-8.

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: an Introduction. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2009

[shewantsdepth-blog]

D E C O D E

Monique S. Pamintuan MC210

A.

1. Semiotics theory is the production and interpretation of meaning.

It is the science of signification.

“I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determine an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby immediately determined by the former.” Charles Sanders Peirce said, one of the prominent theorists of Semiotics.

Peirce provided three elements in Semiotics. It is the Representamen or Sign, the Object and the Interpretant.

1. Representamen - the form which the sign takes

2. Object - what the sign represents.

3. Interpretant - the sense made of the sign

Upon seeing a photo or hearing a word, we immediately associate meanings to it, an idea or image is created in our minds. We interpret it according to what we know. For example, I say “dog”, you may imagine your pet named “Bantay” and say that dogs are lovely and amazing. But for some people, they may remember their moments when a dog barks at them and the sensation of fear comes back. There are actually millions of possible interpretation to a sign. But there could be a dominant and powerful meaning/s that are mostly accepted by everyone. According to Berger nonverbal signs can produce many complex symbols and hold multiple meanings.

2. Our interpretations are highly based on our Culture. When growing up, we imitate the actions, behaviors and language we see from people around us. And then we adapt beliefs, customs, principles and traditions. But the unfortunate part of it is that when two cultures hold different meanings about something, conflict may arise. For example, gift for us means a present given freely to show love. “Gift” in Germany means poison which may be misunderstood when we say “I have a gift for you.” to them. On the other hand, Semiotics is good when we endorse the good things about our Culture. For example, Pampanga is known for its great food, an image of a pot for cooking is used in the CABALEN logo to signify good food.

3. Semiotics is very useful for visual communication practitioners.

“Visual communication is the communication of ideas through the visual display of information. Primarily associated with two dimensional images, it includes: art, signs, photography, typography, drawing fundamentals, color and electronic resources.” (www.citrinitas.com) A sign can be a word, sound, or visual image. The problem of meaning arises because the relation between the sign and the interpretation is arbitrary and conventional. In other words, “signs can mean anything we agree that they mean, as well as mean different things to different people.” Study of signs is very useful to visual communication practitioners because it provides deeper understanding to signs that can lead to a production of effective and powerful visuals, especially a nondiscriminatory one.

A.1 Photography (B&W)

I love photographs in black and white. It gives me an unfathomable feeling when I see a photograph with a good shot and in black and white. I researched about it and found the discussion of Will Shepherd, the Creative Director at McCann Enterprise entitled “The Semiotics of Black and White Photography”.

“Black and white photography conveys the notion of history and times past and it is used in advertising to communicate nostalgia and heritage but it is also the visual language of cool and stardom,” he said.He said that it is one of the best tools to capture the drama, spontaneity and depth of humanity.

Charles Peirce's term 'indexicality' under the Object element of Semiotics refers to the physical relationship between the object photographed and the resulting image. Semiotics is applied to photography when photographers want to make people understand reality in a different way.

A.2 Brand Building

You probably know some famous brands of products such as Nike, Adidas, The North Face, Heartstrings, Apple, Samsung, ASUS, ACER and many more. But did you know that Semiotics is used in building a brand? According to Sudio Sudarsan, a consultant, an author, and a professor, the contribution of brand meanings and perceptions to profitability testifies to the power pf symbolic representation to capture the hearts and minds of consumers by signs. For example, the brand The North Face, the logo of it showed the words “The North Face” using a notable font. Moreover, the words are printed on a red background depicting thrill and excitement and lastly, the curve three lines is an icon of a mountain.

B. RHETORICAL TRADITION

1. The Power of Words

Rhetoric is the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people. Aristotle raised rhetoric to a science by systematically exploring the effects of the speaker, the speech, and the audience. He said that through good creation of ideas, proper arranging of thoughts, effective style of putting your ideas into words, memorization of the speech and a powerful delivery to it can persuade the audience to believe you.

Inventio (invention) is the process that leads to the development and refinement of an argument.

Once arguments are developed, dispositio (disposition, or arrangement) is used to determine how it should be organized for greatest effect, usually beginning with the exordium.

Once the speech content is known and the structure is determined, the next steps involve elocutio (style) and pronuntiatio (presentation).

Memoria (memory) comes to play as the speaker recalls each of these elements during the speech.

Actio (delivery) is the final step as the speech is presented in a gracious and pleasing way to the audience – the Grand Style.

2. Rhetoric Today

You probably have listened to someone delivering a poem in a more intense way. The speaker threw lines that can instantly touch your soul. Spoken Word Poetry is now very prevalent to the generation today. The youth has now realized deeper the power of words. Aristotle’s mode of persuasion is very helpful for the people who want to put their deeper thoughts into word.

•       ETHOS – deals with the character of the speaker.  

•       LOGOS – appeals to the logical reason

•       PATHOS – the emotional influence of the speaker on the audience

C. The greatest lesson I’ve learned when working with a group is the importance of communication. You really have to communicate with your group mates to produce a good presentation. You cannot understand theories on your own, you have to ask questions to other people. And I think as a future media practitioner, most of the time I will work with people that have different knowledge about the job and that can help me know more. I have to speak things that are important for our work and I have to listen to them.

Good communication results to good output.

[bphillipyork]

First I think it, then I say it, then I Write it

Then I know what I actually Think

When I was sixteen I thought I was a good writer. I thought good writing meant grandiose, florid, bombastic, purple prose with excessive use of adjects and incredibly complex sentences that were near to being run-ons; it meant the kind of writing that necessitated reading and re-reading, not for the beauty of the words or the feeling they evoked but rather for the bewildering need to unpack layers of meaning and nested clauses.

I took a class on constitutional law, at New Vista High School, from John Zola, and I realized a couple of things. First, I was not a good writer (not to imply I am now, but I definitely wasn’t then). Second that just giving a reaction to some question or thought often leads to failure.

For me, to really get to the heart of something, or decide what I really think about an important issue I need three steps. First I think about it. Then I talk about it. Then I write about it. I don’t really have a firm grasp of my convictions or explore the fullness of thought on an issue until I sit down and write it down. There’s something clarifying and purifying about the writing process for me. Frequently I find that I change my ideas, incorporate new ones, or alter my opinions.

Getting a B in that course required getting a B on at least one paper, and some attendance and other things. I wanted to be a lawyer, and I believed I was a good writer, I thought it would be no problem.

It was a problem.

I wrote 27 drafts of a 2-page essay on the Federalist 10

Along the way, I would say I drastically improved my writing style and voice, as well as learning to really express myself, and I came to value parsimony.

I think that this kind of process would be really valuable for a lot more people to engage in. So often people just spout off. But our knee-jerk reactions are frequently just based on what we’ve always believed or assumed to be true. And so often, when challenged, people just double down or get defensive.

Most people seem to absorb the idea of ethics and morals and inherit most of what they believe from their parents and their environment, develop a little over time, and mostly freeze when they enter adulthood. I think part of the problem is that people are rarely challenged, and when they are, they react inappropriately, personalizing any criticism.

The modern media apparatus and the nature of social media mean that for the most part, people exist within bubbles of like-minded individuals. When people do disagree, the agreement is nearly always tribal, with people performatively signaling that they agree with this group or that group.

The process of writing and self-reflection forces people to consider alternative points of view. Constructing logical arguments, and appealing to logos rather than pathos, as people are frequently challenged to do in essays, forces people to get away from their own emotional reactions and look for reasons to believe what they believe.

There’s also the necessity of answering those logical arguments from the other side, embedded in the argument and counter-argument of how argumentative essays are typically written. The failure to acknowledge and deal with the arguments of the other side in a logical manner. Unlike the talking (shouting) heads that frequently populate media, and are looking to score points with a quick bon mot, reasoned discourse, even with yourself, is an incredibly valuable thing. And forcing yourself to take the other side in an argument, fundamentally makes you put yourself in their shoes.

I did ultimately get a B in that course, and I believe I became a much better writer, and thinker, as a result. I think one of the problems with the United States today is that the vast majority of people stop writing, and thinking, in High School, and so their ideas, arguments, and values stay locked to a time that is moving further and further away in history all the time.

The post First I think it, then I say it, then I Write it appeared first on BPhillipYork.

source http://bphillipyork.com/2020/06/23/first-i-think-it-then-i-say-it-then-i-write-it/

[tristonrichardson32-blog]

Tumblr 2 Rewrite.

Triston Richardson

Dr. Kunde 

Comm-380

May 5th, 2020

                                                 Tumblr 2 rewrite.

In this entry, I will be examining the critical question: What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

For my artifact, I will be using the speech that President Bush gave on September 6th, 2006. President Bush used this speech to try to justify his war on terror that failed to fulfill his promises.  Bush gave this speech in order to gain the trust of a rattled public through Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in ways that make himself seem like a competent leader who is capable of stopping this threat by appealing to the public fear for their way of life. President Bush used these rhetorical strategies to further his administration’s stance on a new war, unethically persuading audiences into believing his war on terror is justified.

Following the devastating events of September 11th, 2001 there were many concerns that faced the public. Terrorism was an invisible threat to America, it could be anybody and could happen anywhere. The fear of another terrorist strike created hysteria in Americans, leaving the citizens desperate for answers about those who were behind the terror they are now facing. Following 9/11 President Bush announced that America would do anything in its power to stop those who wish to harm our way of life, officially starting a war on terror that would throw our military into a very unclear war. President Bush claimed that intelligence proved that Iraq was heavily involved in terrorism and stressed that our enemies in Iraq were creating weapons of mass destruction to harm our country for terrorists to use against us, using this terrifying thought to create a war in Iraq that met terrorism where it started. This appealed to citizens at the time and gave a face to the invisible threat of terror, giving the country a reason for war. President Bush used the possibility that terrorism could have weapons of mass destruction as a way to create mass hysteria in America that only he could deal with. After failing to find quality results that justified the war Americans were unsure about the necessity of the war on terror and still held many of the fears that came from 9/11 close to their hearts because they felt as though no progress in dealing with terror came from the war effort. Bush gave his speech in 2006 to help the unsure American citizens feel as though what his administration did was both necessary and ethically sound.

There are many ways to appeal to an audience, and Aristotle gave three proofs that validate the rhetoric. These proofs are Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Aristotle defined Ethos as an appeal to human character and goodness, it relates to the speaker and the persuasive potential of a speaker’s character and their personal credibility. In order to establish ethos, a speaker must show phronesis, something that is otherwise known as intelligence and good sense, Arete or virtue and Eunoia which is goodwill. Aristotle asserts that Ethos should not be built from a speaker’s reputation but from what the speaker is saying. Logos is based around logical reasoning, this proof is available in words, arguments, and logical speech. The last of Aristotle’s proofs is Pathos or an appeal through emotion. Aristotle defines Pathos as putting the audience in the right frame of mind, it is the study of names and causes of various human emotions. All three of Aristotle’s proofs help establish a speaker as credible and can greatly affect an audience when used properly. 

In Bush’s speech, he uses Pathos to appeal to a frightened audience and frame himself as an answer to the problem of terrorism in the United States. Throughout his speech, he speaks as though terrorism is something that is looming over the head of America and through the work of his administration the terror can be stifled. Bush brings up questions that put listeners on the edge of their seats, these questions were “The attacks of September the 11th horrified our nation. And amid the grief came new fears and urgent questions. Who had attacked us? What did they want? And what else were they planning?” These questions appealed to the fear in Americans and made them want to find a solution to this new foe. By bringing up questions such as “What were they planning” into the forefront of American minds, Bush creates a desire for constant vigilance against new attacks, placing people in a position to give their support to Bush’s war on terror. The use of Pathos in this speech sets up Bush to built his Ethos or credibility as the head of the anti-terror effort, stoking American’s fears and elevating his war as a way to solve these problems.

After growing this fear of terrorism Bush uses his speech to frame himself as someone who is capable of winning this new war. He builds his ethos by speaking about how his administration is already taking action to secure the safety of Americans and how he is leading this preemptive effort. Bush makes remarks like “So in the early days and weeks after 9/11, I directed our government's senior national security officials to do everything in their power, within our laws, to prevent another attack.” This phrasing frames Bush as the leader of our reaction to terror and as someone who is capable of defending our country against this threat. In the years after 9/11, the war failed to provide factual information that supports Bush’s reason for going to war. This impacted the way that people view Bush’s competence as a leader who can deal with these threats. Bush used his speech as a way to give the people ‘results’ from the war that make it seem as though we are winning, even if these results stray far from answering the original call to war. After framing his administration as something that is actively protecting the country he builds his credibility by convincing the audience that our lives are protected by his actions, making the war seem needed as a way to protect our way of life.

The last of Aristotle’s proofs is Logos or an appeal to the audience through logic. President Bush makes logical claims throughout his speech, ranging from how terrorism is bad to how the collection of vital intelligence is necessary for the safety of America. Bush said that “We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's protecting the American people and our allies.” This appeals to logos because Americans will logically see that the protection of their way of life is important, and any information that leads to this protection is necessary. The war on terror created new issues that still affect our country, issues like mass surveillance, and a lack of privacy for law-abiding citizens. The need for vital information at any cost that came from Bush’s war on terror has created what some people view as a breach of constitutional rights. Creating a need for mass surveillance through fear has compromised the freedom of speech on the off chance that someone might find information that further legitimizes the war on terror. Bush’s use of logos creates a slippery slope for citizens, Bush gives information that listeners will logically see as a good thing but fails to provide how invasive the creation of a mass surveillance network that gains information can truly be. This is largely unethical because it gives citizens small victories to distract them from constitutional abuses that enable the government to find information that justifies the war. 

Bush and his administration used rhetoric to popularize the war on terror and used the fear of 9/11 in America to justify a war. Bush used rhetoric unethically because it served him on a personal level. The use of Aristotle’s three proofs in his 2006 speech further this view because he played on the fear of terror in order to persuade audiences into supporting his war effort and viewing him as a competent leader. President Bush used what could be viewed as a failure of providing a reason for war as a way to establish new information channels that catch terrorism before it happens, dancing away from weapons of mass destruction and moving towards a war on individuals instead of a country. This created credibility for Bush because these networks could stop another 9/11 before it happens, something that Americans would desperately endorse. Logos was used as a way to lead audiences logically into a position that would support a new war on terror while creating new issues that still are relevant in America. The use of pathos in Bush’s speech takes advantage of audiences by demonizing new enemies through relating the war on terror back to traumatic memories from 9/11, placing a new fear into Americans’ hearts. Bush used Aristotle’s three proofs selfishly as a way to further his own agenda, scaring America into supporting a war that has no winners or losers.

While there are many views in regard to this speech, Bush was trying to alleviate a struggling public and calm their fears. Although the war on terror did help him secure himself as a premier candidate for reelection, his use of rhetoric gave the Americans a reassurance that they did not have because of terrorism. Bush used ethos, pathos, and logos to provide the public with information that answered critical questions held by Americans and attempted to quell the fear in everyone’s mind.

In summary, Bush used Aristotle’s three proofs in a selfish manipulation of American’s views of his competency as a president. He appealed to the fear in our hearts post 9/11 and gained his audience’s attention by emphasizing the extent of terror’s reach in our country. His uses of ethos lead the audience to feel as though he is a leader who is capable of taking the steps necessary in order to defeat this new threat. He builds himself up as someone who takes intelligent steps towards his goal of winning the war. He uses logos to validate his statements with facts surrounding the anti-terror efforts, these logical statements lead the audience to come to an agreement with the points that Bush makes.

Works Cited.

Bush, George. “President Bush's Speech on Terrorism.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/washington/06bush_transcript.html.

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Chapter IV. Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

[jordanhawk21]

*Rhetoric of Avatar*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What is the main purpose of this artifact’s message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To analyze these critical questions, I examined a speech given by the character Jake in the cinematic masterpiece known as Avatar. The main purpose of the speech is to inspire the Na’vi, the humanoid species indigeneous to Pandora, to fight back against the humans who want to destroy them and their way of life. Jake uses ethos, pathos, and logos within the rhetoric of his speech to ultimately convey his message to the Na’vi in an ethical manner that creates a call to action for the Na’vi to have the fight of their lives in order to protect their planet and civilization.

The rhetorical artifact being analyzed, a speech given by Jake in the movie Avatar, can best be understood with some background knowledge of the context of the movie. Jake is originally a human who, with the help of an extraordinary scientist, has the ability to transfer his consciousness into a lab created body of a Na’vi person. He meets the Na’vi people and learns about their culture and way of life through rigorous training and lessons taught by the Na’vi people chief’s daughter. However, after learning the truth about where Jake originates from, the Na’vi shut him out and tried to kill him because he is not a true Na’vi. They expect him to act the same way as the sky people, the earth humans who are trying to exterminate them, but fail to realize that Jake feels like he is more a part of their species than his own. Just before giving his speech to all of the Na’vi, their home, the largest tree in all of Pandora, is destroyed by humans with advanced technological, militaristic weapons that the Na’vi can’t defend against with their primitive weapons. Jake must explain himself to the Na’vi and convince them that they cannot give up and he will fight to the end with them for the safety of their home and every Na’vi to come after them in future generations. Through Jake’s passion, credibility, and logic, he is able to inspire the Na’vi and join him in the fight for their home.

In order to fully understand the content of the rhetorical criticism presented in this entry, it’s in the best interest to first define Herrick’s explanation of the three artistic proofs, ethos, pathos, and logos in relation to rhetoric. Herrick defines logos as, “the logic of sound arguments” (Herrick 79). This definition refers to the logical reasoning behind a speech and if it makes sense to the intended audience through the rationality or intelligence presented in the words used within a speech. Next, Herrick defines pathos as the, “emotional appeals that give persuasive messages their power to move an audience to action” (Herrick 79). This means that pathos is seen as the emotional factor within a given speech and what emotions are trying to be invoked into the intended audience that ultimately ends with an inspiration of action to be taken. Lastly, Herrick explains ethos as, “the sociology of good character” (Herrick 80). This definition refers to the credibility of the speaker. Credibility stems from someone’s intelligence, knowledge, and “the persuasive potential of the speaker’s character” (Herrick 80). This also refers to how well does the audience trust and respect the speaker.

As stated previously, the main purpose of Jake’s speech is to inspire and unify the Na’vi against the humans who are trying to destroy them and their way of life. Jake builds his logos by using the destruction of the Na’vis home as a way to logically present the argument that they need to fight back and defend what is left of their existence. He says, “the sky people have sent us a message, that they can take whatever they want, and no one can stop them, but we will send them a message” (Avatar). It is in this moment within the beginning of the speech that Jake presents the argument that it’s time for the Na’vi to fight back against the sky people. His logical reasoning implies that if they don’t fight back, then soon there will be nothing left to fight for. The logos used in his speech helps achieve his main purpose for the Na’vi to fight back by bringing a better understanding of the consequences that follow if the Na’vi are to not fight at all because of their fear of the advanced militaristic technology being used against them.

Along with using logos in his speech to the Na’vi, Jake also uses an excessive amount of pathos to invoke the emotion needed to fight back against the sky people. While giving his speech, he begins speaking slowly with a more soft spoken and compassionate tone when speaking about the sky people. He quickly changes his tone to be more firm and inspirational by raising his voice and strongly saying, “you fly now, with me. My brothers, sisters, and we will show the sky people that they cannot take whatever they want and that this, this is our land” (Avatar). Jake’s words invoke an inspirational emotion and a sense of Na’vi pride amongst all the Na’vi. The Na’vi show this emotion by beginning to stand up and cheer for their pride in the civilization they created for themselves. Due to the rhetorical use of pathos in his speech, Jake is able to create passion, pride, and a sense of superiority of the Na’vi over the sky people to achieve his message for the Na’vi to defend against their oppressors.

For his message to be taken seriously, Jake had to build his ethos, or credibility. This isn’t seen as much in the words that he uses, but the actions he took to get to this point. Prior to giving the speech, Jake flies in on the biggest and most ruthless dragon that all Na’vi were scared of. He bonded with the dragon and trained it to listen to him to help protect the Na’vi and gain their trust. This helped achieve his message to the Na’vi because it proves his loyalty to the clan and that he does not see himself as a sky person anymore, but as one of the Na’vi. He also gained the trust and respect from the best Na’vi warrior to enhance his credibility for the Na’vi. Jake used this warrior to translate his speech from english to the native tongue of the Na’vi. This helped increase his credibility when speaking so that everyone was able to understand him and his message clearly with the help of one of the Na’vis most respected members to achieve his message to them of how they should be fighting back for what they believe in.

The way that these rhetorical appeals are used is ethical because Jake is speaking truthfully, invoking pride, and is logically fair within the context of his speech. There is no misjudgement or miscommunication present when speaking to the Na’vi. He speaks from the heart with a clear mind that allows his message to be taken seriously and without uncertainty for the Na’vi to hear and eventually join him in the fight against the sky people for their home. Without Jake’s proper use of ethos, pathos, and logos, he would not have been able to achieve his message to the Na’vi for them to not sit back and wait for their destruction, but to get up and fight back against oppression that wants to rid them of their own home.

Avatar. Beverly Hills, Calif: 20th Century Fox, 2010.

Herrick, J. A. (2005). Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). New York: Routledge.

[multimodalmagic]

“You quickly took in the information and made an informed, and likely somewhat accurate, decision about that person. Over the years, as you have interacted with others, you have built a mental database that you can draw on to make conclusions about what a person’s looks tell you about their personality. You have become able to analyze quickly what people are saying about themselves through the way they choose to dress, accessorize, or wear their hair.” (46)

“We have, of course, heard that you “can’t judge a book by its cover,” but, in fact, we do it all the time. Daily we find ourselves in situations where we are forced to make snap judgments. Each day we meet different people, encounter unfamiliar situations, and see media that asks us to do, think, buy, and act in all sorts of ways.” (46)

“The more we know about how to analyze situations and draw informed conclusions, the better we can become about making savvy judgments about the people, situations and media we encounter.” (46)

“Rhetoric—the way we use language and images to persuade—is what makes media work. Think of all the media you see and hear every day: Twitter, television shows, web pages, billboards, text messages, podcasts.” (46)

“Media is constantly asking you to buy something, act in some way, believe something to be true, or interact with others in a specific manner. Understanding rhetorical messages is essential to help us to become informed consumers, but it also helps evaluate the ethics of messages, how they affect us personally, and how they affect society.” (46)

“If we refuse to stop and think about how and why it persuades us, we can become mindless consumers who buy into arguments about what makes us value ourselves and what makes us happy.” (47)

“In the same way that you decide how to process, analyze or ignore these messages, you create them. You probably think about what your clothing will communicate as you go to a job interview or get ready for a date. You are also using rhetoric when you try to persuade your parents to send you money or your friends to see the movie that interests you.” (47)

“What we choose to wear (tennis shoes vs. flip flops), where we shop (Whole Foods Market vs. Wal-Mart), what we eat (organic vs. fast food), or even the way we send information (snail mail vs. text message) can work to persuade others.” (48)

“Rhetorical messages always occur in a specific situation or context.... You choose your clothing depending on where you are going or what you are doing; that’s context. A television commercial comes on during specific programs and at specific points of the day; that’s context. A billboard is placed in a specific part of the community; that’s context, too.” (48)

“Exigence is the circumstance or condition that invites a response... rhetorical discourse is usually responding to some kind of problem.” (48)

“Another part of the rhetorical context is audience, those who are the (intended or unintended) recipients of the rhetorical message. The audience should be able to respond to the exigence. In other words, the audience should be able to help address the problem.... Rhetors make all sorts of choices based on their audience. Audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric, and even the types of reasons used the make the rhetor’s argument.” (49)

“The constraints of the rhetorical situation are those things that have the power to “constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (Bitzer 306).... Constraints can be “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives” (Bitzer 306). Constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated.” (49)

“Some rhetoricians look at subject, purpose, audience and occasion. Others might look at the “rhetorical triangle” of writer, reader, and purpose.” (51)

“What you really want to understand is the argument—what the rhetor wants you to believe or do and how he or she goes about that persuasion.... Aristotle articulated three “artistic appeals” that a rhetor could draw on to make a case—logos, pathos, and ethos.” (52)

“Logos is commonly defined as argument from reason, and it usually appeals to an audience’s intellectual side. As audiences we want to know the “facts of the matter,” and logos helps present these—statistics, data [numbers and charts], and logical statements.” (52)

“Few of us are persuaded only with our mind, though. Even if we intellectually agree with something, it is difficult to get us to act unless we are also persuaded in our heart. This kind of appeal to emotion is called pathos. Pathetic appeals (as rhetoric that draws on pathos is called) used alone without logos and ethos can come across as emotionally manipulative or overly sentimental, but are very powerful when used in conjunction with the other two appeals. Emotional appeals can come in many forms—an anecdote or narrative, an image such as a photograph, or even humor. Pathos can also be a very effective appeal if the rhetor has to persuade the audience in a very short amount of time, which is why it is used heavily in print advertisements, billboards, or television commercials.” (53) 

“[P]athetic appeals will often hold our interest much longer than intellectual appeals.... The humor of the ad... is meant to draw the reader in and help them become interested in the argument before the ad gets to the logos.” (54)

“The humor also makes the organization seem real and approachable, contributing to the ethos. Ethos refers to the credibility of the rhetor—which can be a person or an organization. A rhetor can develop credibility in many ways. The tone of the writing and whether that tone is appropriate for the context helps build a writer’s ethos, as does the accuracy of the information or the visual presentation of the rhetoric.” (54)

“Aristotle’s artistic appeals are not the only way to understand the argument of rhetoric. You might choose to look at the claim or the unstated assumptions of a piece; someone else might consider the visual appeal of the rhetoric, like the font, page layout, types of paper, or images; another person might focus on the language use and the specific word choice and sentence structure of a piece. Logos, pathos, and ethos can provide a nice framework for analysis, but there are numerous ways to understand how a piece of rhetoric persuades (or fails to persuade).” (54-55)

“• Does the rhetoric address the problem it claims to address? • Is the rhetoric targeted at an audience who has the power to make change? • Are the appeals appropriate to the audience? • Does the rhetor give enough information to make an informed decision? • Does the rhetoric attempt to manipulate in any way (by giving incomplete/ inaccurate information or abusing the audience’s emotions)? • What other sub-claims do you have to accept to understand the rhetor’s main claim?  • What possible negative effects might come from this rhetoric?

Rhetorical analysis asks how discourse functions in the setting in which it is found. In the same way that a commercial for denture cream seems very out of place when aired during a reality television show aimed at teenagers, rhetoric that does not respond well to its context often fails to persuade.” (55-56)

“1. What are examples of rhetoric that you see or hear on a daily basis? 2. What are some ways that you create rhetoric? What kinds of messages are you trying to communicate? 3. What is an example of a rhetorical situation that you have found yourself in? Discuss exigence, audience, and constraints.” (57-58)

Laura Bolin Carroll. (2010) “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1. Parlor Press. (45-58). http://parlorpress.com/pdf/carroll--backpacks-vs-briefcases.pdf 

[benrleeusa]

[Eugene Volokh] Logos, ethos and pathos (not to be confused with Athos, Porthos and Aramis)

Aristotle and later Cicero wrote about argument being composed of logos, ethos and pathos. Most people know the “logos” as logic and “pathos” as emotion (easy to remember because of words such as “pathetic” and especially “pathos”). But it’s easy to misremember “ethos” as an appeal to ethics, or to (say) the ethos of an era or a law.

But ethos actually means something different: It’s an appeal to the audience’s perception of the speaker’s character, or (especially in Cicero’s view) the character of the person whom the speaker represents. This perception can stem from the speaker’s reputation, but also the speaker’s manner on the present occasion:

People’s minds are won over by a man’s prestige, his accomplishments, and the reputation he has acquired by his way of life. Such things are easier to embellish if present than to fabricate if totally lacking, but at any rate, their effect is enhanced by a gentle tone of voice on the part of the orator, an expression on his face intimating restraint, and kindliness in the use of his words, and if you press some point rather vigorously, by seeming to act against your inclination, because you are forced to do so.

Indications of flexibility, on the part of the orator and the client, are also quite useful, as well as signs of generosity, mildness, dutifulness, gratitude, and of not being desirous or greedy. Actually, all qualities typical of people who are decent and unassuming, not severe, not obstinate, not litigious, not harsh, really win goodwill, and alienate the audience from those who do not possess them. And these same considerations must likewise be employed to ascribe the opposite qualities to our opponents. [Quoted from James M. May’s translation of Cicero’s De Oratore.]

To be sure, Cicero acknowledges that there are times when there is an “opportunity to use some form of sharp and violent emotional arousal to set the juror’s heart aflame,” and then presumably mildness has to be set aside — but Cicero’s general view is that an ethos-based argument should take advantage of the virtues (real or perceived) outlined in the block quote above.

Of course, in our legal system an overt appeal to this ethos might itself be unethical (as my colleague Steve Yeazell has pointed out): A lawyer, for instance, is often barred from personally vouching for his client’s innocence or other qualities of character. And of course both judges and jurors are supposed to attend to the merits of the case, not the personal qualities of the lawyers.

But human nature being what it is, listeners and readers — I’m most familiar with judges as listeners, but I suspect this is true of jurors as well — can’t help but be affected by the ethos component of a lawyer’s manner, personality and (especially for judges) reputation. Advice from the ancients that is worth remembering even today, just not under the obvious mental translation as “ethics.”